Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Bank of England Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Tees Valley Water Bill,

As amended, to be considered upon Friday.

London County Council (Money) Bill,

To be read a Second time to-morrow.

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Friday.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

BRITISH IMPORTS.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the value of British imports into India for the six months ending 31st March, 1922, as compared with the respective totals for the two immediately preceding periods of six months?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The figure for six months ending 31st March, 1922, is Rs.99,70 lakhs; for the preceding six months, Rs.77,62 lakhs; and for six months before that, Rs.112,26 lakhs.

PANDIT HARISH CHANDRA.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether permission can now be granted
to Pandit Ravish Chandra to return to India, either with or without conditions?

Earl WINTERTON: If the question relates to Harish Chandra, there is not and never has been any order against his return to India. It is open to him to go there whenever he pleases, but in saying so I must not be understood as promising any immunity if he has committed an offence.

MINISTERS (RESIGNATION).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has any information as to the cause of the resignation of the Ministers the hon. Chintamini and Pandit Juggath Naraian; and has their resignation been accepted?

Earl WINTERTON: I have no information beyond what has been stated in a Press telegram.

CABLE COMPANIES.

Mr. GILBERT: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any subsidy or annual allowance is paid by the Indian Government to any of the cable companies owning cables to India; and, if so, what the amounts are and to which companies they are paid, and what conditions the Government receive for any such payments?

Earl WINTERTON: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the negative; the second part, therefore, does not arise.

RAILWAY COMPANIES (GOVERNMENT GUARANTEES).

Mr. GILBERT: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India, in the case of how many railway companies in India the Indian Government guarantee the interest on debentures or any other stocks of the companies; can he give the names of the companies; and what amount of capital on each is so guaranteed?

Earl WINTERTON: As the answer is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

STATEMENT showing the Capital Liabilities of Indian Railway Companies, domiciled in London outstanding on 31st March, 1923, the Interest on which is guaranteed by the Secretary of State.


Railway Company.
Share Capital.
Debenture Stock.
Debentures.


Amount.
Rate of Interest.
Nominal Amount.
Rate of Interest.
Nominal Amount.
Rate of Interest.



£
Per cent.
£
Per cent.
£
Per cent.


Assam-Bengal
1,500,000
3
—
—
300,000
6¼







430,900
6







730,900



Bengal-Nagpur
3,000,000
3½
2,000,000
4
1,472,000
6







775,500
5½







623,500
5







2,003,900
4½







4,874,900



Bombay, Baroda and Central India.
2,000,000
3
1,000,000
3½
—
—


Burma Railways
3,000,000
2½
1,250,000
3
—
—


Delhi-Umballa-Kalka
1,000,000
3¼
300,000
5
—
—


East Indian
6,550,000
4
7,000,000
3½
—
—



(Deferred Annuity).

8,000,000
3







3,500,000
4½




Great Indian Peninsula
2,575,000
3
3,500,000
3½
475,000
6


Madras and Southern Mahratta.
5,000,000
3½
2,500,000
4
100,000
5¾







201,000
5


Madras and Southern Mahratta, Mysore Section.
—
—
1,200,000
4
500,000
4½







1,276,000



South Indian
1,000,000
3½
2,318,248
4
395,000
6







500,000
4½







895,000

In addition, there are 11 small companies, domiciled in India, with capitals aggregating Rs.2,74,88,000, or £1,832,533, which have been given a guarantee of interest at various rates by the Government of India. A number of companies, all domiciled in India, except the Southern Punjab Railway Company, have also been given by the Government of India a guarantee of rebate from the net earnings of the main line, with which they are connected, from traffic interchanged with the branch to make up interest on their paid-up share capitals to an agreed figure.

PUBLIC SERVICES (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Mr. J. HOPE SIMPSON: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what length of time it is anticipated will be required for the inquiry by the Royal
Commission on Indian Services; and whether measures will be taken to ensure that early orders will be passed upon the Report?

Earl WINTERTON: It is hoped that a few months will be sufficient time to enable the Commission to report. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. The importance of expedition is fully realised.

VISAPUR GAOL.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has seen the report of the inquiry into the Visapur Gaol and the treatment there of political prisoners; and whether, in view of the widespread allegations concerning conditions in this gaol, he will have this report laid in the Library?

Earl WINTERTON: I have seen the report of the Committee appointed by the Government of Bombay in September last consisting of the Commissioner, Central Division, as Chairman, the District Magistrate of Ahmednagar and an Indian Member of the Bombay Legislative Council. I will place in the Library a copy of the report as soon as one is available, and meanwhile I circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the summary with which the Committee's report itself concludes. I presume that the allegations to which the hon. and gallant Member refers are those which appear in a pamphlet, the two authors of which were invited to attend before the Committee with an offer of their expenses. Neither of them appeared, and it will be seen that, while drawing attention to some serious defects, the Committee effectually disposed of many of the gross misrepresentations that the pamphlet in question contains.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask, first, whether any action has been taken as a result of this report; and, secondly, when we may expect to have the report?

Earl WINTERTON: As regards the first question, certain disciplinary action has been taken as a result of the report. I am not sure when the full report will be available, but it will be as soon as it arrives from India.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: Will action also be taken regarding the misrepresentations which have been made in this case?

Earl WINTERTON: The authors were given an opportunity, as I have already said, of appearing before the Committee, but they did not do so. Whether any further action against them is desirable is, at the present time, being considered by the authorities in India.

Following is the summary of the report:

"To summarise: the general management of the prison is satisfactory and the treatment of prisoners, except some of those under the charge of ex-warden Subrao, has been humane. Only as regards ill-treatment in the grinding shed do we consider that the complaints of any prisoners or ex-prisoners examined by us disclose serious grievances—we are, however, of opinion that prisoners (like Govindji Vasanji and some others) unaccustomed to a rough life should never have been sent to serve their sentences in a prison of the Visapur type, which is intended for hardy convicts whose
normal occupation is manual labour; the former class naturally feel the discomfort and, possibly, degradation inseparable from a convict gang existence more keenly. The buildings, with the other measures employed, are suitable for their purpose, but their temporary nature must be recognised. Medical and sanitary arrangements are adequate, but the scarcity of water is a drawback.

Fetters must continue to be employed. We are not unanimous about the bel chain, but the majority consider that, in the circumstances of this gaol, it cannot safely be dispensed with, and find no ground for the allegation that its use is barbarous or degrading. The present gaol should not be continued at Visapur, nor should a gaol of regular type be built there after the dam is completed. If another camp gaol is built elsewhere, then convicts at Visapur should be drafted to it, otherwise they must be drafted to the various existing regular prisons on completion of the work on which they are engaged.

Latrine arrangements should be improved by the provision of more seats and a greater degree of privacy, and attention should be paid to the provision of an adequate supply of water for latrine purposes. Prisoners should have a half-weekly bath if this is possible. The superior staff should, as far as possible, check and punish unnecessary hustling of prisoners during the night and at early morning and latrine parades; and complaints of ill-treatment which have any colour of foundation should be reported to the superintendent without delay.

Sundays and other holidays prescribed in the gaol manual should be whole holidays, and not half holidays only, save for such necessary work as the manual mentions.

Poona, 29th November, 1922.

(Signed) H. L. PAINTER,

Commissioner, C.D., (Chairman),

G. MONTEATH,

Collector,

Ahmednagar,

G. K. CHITALE.

EUROPEAN CIVIL SERVANTS (RETIREMENT).

Mr. SIMPSON: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many officials in the different European Civil Services have retired in each province under the proportionate pensions scheme since the offer was first made; and whether there is any reason to believe that these retirements are due to dissatisfaction with the conditions of pay and prospects in those Services?

Earl WINTERTON: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the figures, which, I should explain, represent the number of applications for
permission to retire received and sanctioned by my Noble Friend. But in many cases the retirement has not yet actually taken place, as the applicants all have a considerable period of leave at their credit, which they are entitled to take before going on pension; and in some cases they have not yet left India. In a few cases, too, permission to retire has been cancelled at the request of the applicants who have changed their minds. As regards the second part of the question, I have no reliable information as to the motives of those applicants, who are not required to make any further declaration

STATEMENT of Retirements on Proportionate Pension Sanctioned by the Secretary of State India in Council up to the 7th May, 1923.


—
Indian Civil Service.
India Police Service.
Indian Educational Service.
Indian Service of Engineers.
Indian Forest Service.
Indian Agricultural Service.
Indian Veterinary Service.
Total.


Madras
…
6*
6
4‡
8
—
2
1
27


Bombay
…
7
12
6
4
2
1
1
33


Bengal
…
13
17
3
1
1
1
—
36


United Provinces
…
11
14
7
9
7
1
1
50


Punjab
…
11
21
—
6
3
—
1
42


Bihar and Orissa
…
6
3
—
—
—
1
—
10


Central Provinces
…
3
8
1
4
3
1
—
20


Assam
…
—
2
1
—
1
2
—
6


Burma
…
8†
5
—
8
—
—
—
21


Total
…
65
88
22
40
17
9
4
245


* Includes one Indian member of the Indian Civil Service.


† Includes one Indian member of the Indian Civil Service and three military officers serving in the Burma Commission.


‡ Includes one member of the Indian Educational Service (Women's Branch).

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

REFUGEES (ASSISTANCE).

Major EDMONDSON: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any Department or organisation operating under official auspices is providing assistance for distressed Irish loyalists now in this country who have lost their entire livelihood and possessions through recent events in Southern Ireland; and whether, in that case, he will state exactly what the bodies are and the principles upon which they operate, since there is very great distress among this deserving class, who are now finding themselves completely unable to carry on?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies

than that they desire to retire in view of the change in conditions of service occasioned by the Act of 1919.

Mr. SIMPSON: Is any difficulty found in filling up vacancies in various establishments in India at the present time?

Earl WINTERTON: That is a question of a general character rather difficult to answer. There is no difficulty at all in some cases; there is difficulty in others. I shall be in a position later to make a more definite statement on that subject.

Following is the statement promised:

whether the Irish Grants Committee have power to make advances to Southern Irish refugees who have not obtained decrees or awards in respect of the malicious injuries which they have sustained?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I have been asked to reply. The constitution and terms of reference of the Irish Grants Committee, of which I am Chairman, are set forth in Part III of the White Paper recently presented to Parliament [Cmd. 1844.] The Committee has power to make advances not only in cases where decrees or awards have been obtained, but also in all cases where there is a primâ facie valid claim for compensation in respect of malicious injuries. It also has power to grant tem-
porary relief to refugees in this country who have no such claims. I believe its powers are sufficient to enable the Committee to prevent or remove acute financial distress in all such cases, and I shall be grateful if hon. Members of this House will co-operate with me in ensuring that no case of distress escapes the attention of the Committee.

PASSPORTS.

Colonel NEWMAN: 17.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a British subject born and domiciled in Ireland but resident in Great Britain is unable to obtain a passport to travel abroad until reference is made to and leave obtained from the competent authority of the Irish Free State; and what action does he propose to take to remove this disability imposed on a citizen who claims to be of full British nationality and status?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the definition of Irish citizenship in Article 3 of the Irish Free State Constitution, which formed the Second Schedule to the Irish Free State Constitution Act, 1922. It is the practice of His Majesty's Government to grant passports to British subjects who are also Irish Free State citizens, as therein defined, only after consultation with the competent authority of the Irish Free State. This procedure is analogous to that which obtains in regard to persons of Canadian origin temporarily resident in this country.

Colonel NEWMAN: Does that mean that I myself will be confined to these islands?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not think so; I am not aware that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has taken up Irish citizenship.

Colonel NEWMAN: I have not taken up Irish citizenship; but apparently I must take it up or stay in these islands for ever!

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not think that that is the least likely to arise.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Am I right in supposing that all Irish citizens are British subjects as well?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Certainly, that is so; so are all Canadian citizens.

MALICIOUS INJURIES (COMPENSATION).

Colonel NEWMAN: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that by recent and retrospective legislation of the Irish Free State the Wood Renton Compensation Commission set up by this House in conjunction with the Dail is left with no statutory authority, but only power to recommend payments for damage to property, and that those injured are expressly deprived of the power of taking any steps to recover or enforce payment of the amount of any decree; and is it the intention of the Government to seek to provide alternative rights or remedies in some statutory form to the injured person before the said legislation receives the assent of the Governor-General of the Irish Free State?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Subject to the observations that the Wood Renton Commission at no time had any statutory authority the answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; the reply to the second part is in the negative. The security for the awards of the Wood Renton Commission is the good faith of the two Governments by which it was appointed, and the provision of alternative remedies suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend is not practicable.

Colonel NEWMAN: I should like to have an answer: Is it a fact that Mr. Timothy Healy has already given his assent as Governor-General to the Bill?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am not aware that that is so. I understand that the Senate has not yet finally considered the Amendments to the Amendment.

Colonel NEWMAN: 19.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, having regard to the number of refugees from the South of Ireland at present in this country who have obtained awards for compensation from the Wood Renton Commission, he will ascertain, now that awards for injury to property sustained before 11th July, 1921, have no statutory enforcement, but are ex gratiâ, whether the Free State Government are attaching to such ex gratiâ payments, when and if made, a prior liquidation by the holder of the award of any claims for arrears of Income Tax or local rates that may
be made on him by the Inland Revenue or local authority of the Irish Free State?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am informed that the Free State Government have not so far found it necessary to consider any question of withholding any award of compensation for injury to property sustained before 11th July, 1921, by reason of counter claims in respect of Income Tax or rates due by the claimant.

Sir W. DAVISON: Why have these claims not been liquidated?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I understand that payment is already going forward at an increasingly rapid rate.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is my hon. Friend aware that nearly £1,500,000 is due on account of those pre-War injuries to property, which has not been paid?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am fully aware of that.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Dr. SALTER: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that young lads of 17 and 18 years of age, emigrated to Australia under the Government-assisted emigration scheme, are writing home complaining that, though their farmer employers are under contract to pay them wages of 15s. to £1 per week, they are not receiving any money; that in some cases they are penniless, without proper clothes and boots and with no means whatever of obtaining these necessaries; that some are in remote up-country stations, unable to get any assistance or advice; that some complain that they are being knocked about and ill-treated; that they have to work from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.; that they describe the conditions as like slavery; and whether he will inquire immediately by cable as to the state of health, working conditions, and the non-payment of wages to Arthur Sullivan, care of A. F. Habel, Loxton, South Australia, who, in a letter to his mother, alleges that his employer is treating him badly, that the farmers are taking advantage of his and other boys' helpless position, that his clothes and boots are quite worn out, that the immigration officer has forgotten all about him, that he cannot leave or extricate himself because he is many miles from town,
has no means whatever, and is absolutely penniless?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): During the past two years, 2,500 boys have been assisted to proceed to Australia, and have been placed with farmers, in order to gain experience of work upon the land. Only 12 complaints have reached the authorities in this country during that period. They referred to the loneliness, the unsatisfactory accommodation and the food. On investigation they were mostly found to be frivolous. No complaints have been received of the nature indicated in the question. On the other hand, numbers of letters have reached the Oversea Settlement Office expressing satisfaction at the conditions. I have instituted inquiries regarding the case of Arthur Sullivan. It would facilitate these inquiries if the hon. Member would furnish me with any information which may be in his possession.

Captain BERKELEY: Is there any representative of the Oversea Settlement Committee in Australia, and what control has the Oversea Settlement Committee here over the immigration officers referred to in the question?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: The Oversea Settlement Committee has representative in Australia.

Captain BERKELEY: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the propriety of arranging for such representation?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: We have a delegation in Australia which is going into that and other questions.

LIQUOR REGULATIONS, UNITED STATES.

Dr. SALTER: 13.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the publication of the facts that the value of the annual imports of spirits into the Bahama Islands has increased from £6,370 in 1918 to £1,003,721 in 1922, and that practically the whole of this increase is re-exported to America, has caused considerable indignation in the United States; that a widespread impression has been created that the authorities in this country were condoning, if not aiding and abetting, an unlawful traffic; whether the United
States Government had made any diplomatic representations to His Majesty's Government on the subject; and, in view of the possibility of friction arising between the two countries due to the systematic and organised law breaking which was being committed by British subjects in this regard, whether His Majesty's Government will take all possible steps to ensure that spirits so imported into the Bahamas are not smuggled into the United States?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has considered the large trade in smuggled goods carried on between certain of the West Indian islands in His Majesty's possession and the American coast, with a view to its prevention; and whether the governors of these islands have been given instructions to discourage the trade in liquor smuggling which is being carried on from the islands under their administration?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have been asked to reply. I would refer to the replies of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the questions of the hon. Members for Taunton (Mr. J. Hope Simpson) and Bodmin (Mr. Foot) on the 11th and 16th April. I may add that, some considerable time before representations were received from the United States Government, steps had been taken, particularly in the Bahamas, to prevent breaches of local laws and irregularities of any kind in connection with clearances of ships or the transfer of United States vessels to British registry. Supplementary instructions have been issued from time to time, and the United States Government has expressed gratitude for the action taken. I have no doubt that the Colonial Governments concerned will continue to take all legitimate steps to prevent irregularities conducive to liquor smuggling.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask for a definite answer to the second part of my question—whether the Governors of these islands have been instructed to discourage this illegal traffic with a friendly country?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have answered that part—"I have no doubt that the Colonial Governments concerned will con-
tinue to take all legitimate steps to prevent irregularities conducive to liquor smuggling."

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Will the Government consider the publication of a list of the names of British firms engaged in this traffic?

Captain Viscount CURZON: Before that question is answered, is it not true that most of the ships engaged in the "boot-legging" traffic leave the Clyde?

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the publication of a list of these names?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have no knowledge who they are. It has nothing to do with the Colonial Office.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of a recent decision by the supreme court of the United States with regard to the complete prohibition of all liquor in foreign vessels in American ports, he will take steps to enforce on ships of all countries in British ports the British regulation which necessitates the carrying of a certain quantity of spirits for medicinal purposes?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Viscount Wolmer): I have been asked to reply. I have not seen the full text of the judgment, but I do not think it can in any way affect the enforcement of British regulations in British ports, which will continue as heretofore.

Viscount CURZON: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have had their attention drawn to the proposals of the United States Government to prohibit liquor carried on board British liners arriving in United States waters after the 1st June next; and whether he can state what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government to this question?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): The date on which the measures referred to by my Noble Friend will take effect is still uncertain; our information is that it will not be before the 10th June. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. and learned Member for East Fife (Mr. Duncan Millar) on the 2nd instant.

Viscount CURZON: Is it the intention of His Majesty's Government to recognise the decision of the United States in this respect?

Mr. BALDWIN: My Noble Friend will recognise that we must wait until we have full information as to what really is intended. We shall have that, I hope, in a few days' time. At present we are dependent merely on cable messages.

Viscount CURZON: Is it not a fact that the United States Government have threatened to confiscate British ships? If you get the "Majestic" confiscated, what are you going to do?

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Does the Government uphold the doctrine that the jurisdiction of the laws of a nation accompanies its ships into foreign ports, and that the ships are considered as part of the territory of the nation itself?

Mr. BALDWIN: Whatever position we take up, we shall certainly act in full accord with international law.

PALESTINE.

ELECTIONS (PROSECUTION).

Mr. PETO: 14.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any information as to whether Haj Tewfik Hammad, Vice-President of the first Palestine Arab Congress and formerly representative of Palestine for many years in the Turkish Parliament, has been indicted, with six other notables of Nablus, on the ground that he has encouraged certain voters not to participate in the election, and whether he has satisfied himself that there is any justification for the accusation?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I understand that a prosecution has been instituted in connection with the proceedings of certain persons in the Samara district at the time of the elections. I am asking for further details.

Mr. PETO: Is it an indictable offence in Palestine to do what is an ordinary incident of elections in this country?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I understand that the prosecution—I have not the
details—is a prosecution for intimidation.

Mr. PETO: 16.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received complaints from the Arab community in Palestine that in the recent abortive elections such secondary nominations as were made were obtained in many cases by fraud and threats, and even forgery; and whether he will hold an inquiry into the methods in which the elections have been conducted?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

MUKHTAR OF LUBBAN RANTIS (IMPRISONMENT).

Mr. PETO: 15.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has obtained any information as to the Mukhtar of Lubban Rantis in the Ramleh sub-district of Palestine, having been imprisoned without trial, indictment, or any legal proceedings; whether he is aware that at the end of 11 days' imprisonment, during which he was unable to obtain any information as to the cause of his imprisonment, he was ordered to leave the prison and, on his return to his village, found that he had been dismissed from his office, against the wishes of the village inhabitants; and whether he can inform the House as to the reason for these proceedings?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, Sir; I have no information on this subject, but I will inquire.

CHINA (BOXER INDEMNITY).

Dr. CHAPPLE: 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that it is understood that on the Committee which is to decide the methods of using the remitted Boxer Indemnity there will at least be one representative of Chinese interests, he will ensure that this arrangement is carried out to guarantee that those claims which are ultimately proposed will be for the benefit of both nations and approved by both nations?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): It is not possible at the present
stage to give any undertaking as to what arrangements will eventually be made to give effect to the intention of His Majesty's Government to devote the British share of the Boxer Indemnity to purposes of mutual benefit to British and Chinese interests.

Dr. CHAPPLE: Have we any representatives on the Committee or body dealing with this matter?

Mr. McNEILL: It is a body that has not yet been constituted.

GERMANY AND RUSSIA.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 28.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information with regard to a rapprochement between Germany and the Russian Government which is especially directed against Poland?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer is in the negative.

RUSSIA.

BRITISH NOTE OF PROTEST.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 29.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the diplomatic Note of protest to the Russian Government has yet been drawn up; whether it has been forwarded to Moscow for presentation to that Government; and when he will be in a position to state the terms of the Note?

Mr. McNEILL: The Note has been forwarded to Moscow, but I can say nothing for the moment as to the date on which it will be possible to publish its terms.

Mr. LEACH: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether the British Government is preparing a Note to be sent to the Russian Soviet Government intimating the decision of the British Cabinet to cut off trade relations with Russia and withdraw the Trade Mission?

Mr. McNEILL: I am not in a position to add anything to the replies already returned to questions on this subject.

BRITISH FISHERMEN (RELEASE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 31.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received information that the recent trial of the captain and crew of the Hull trawler "James Johnson" for alleged illegal fishing has been quashed by the Moscow Government and a new trial ordered; and whether he will arrange for the British Trade Mission in Moscow to provide legal and other assistance at this fresh trial?

Mr. McNEILL: I am informed that the Soviet Commissariat of Justice is now considering the cancellation of the verdict. I understand that the owners of the vessel are in touch with the legal representatives recommended by the British Agent in Moscow, who will doubtless give such further assistance as may be in his power.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the hon. Gentleman any further news of the captain and crew; is it true that they are on their way home?

Mr. McNEILL: The latest news I have of the crew is that arrangements are being made for them to be sent home by a ship which is at present at Murmansk, but I have no further news about the captain.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any British representative at Murmansk or Archangel to look after these men?

Mr. McNEILL: I should like notice of that question, but not so far as I am aware.

Major PAGET: Have the Foreign Office made any further arrangements for the protection of these ships?

Viscount CURZON: 43.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the position of the officers and men of the "James Johnson"; whether he has any further information regarding the ship herself; whether the British Note to the Soviet Government has been received by them, and, if so, whether he can give the terms of the Note; and whether any time limit is attached to it for a reply?

Mr. McNEILL: With regard to the first and second parts of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the Noble Lord on the 30th ultimo, except that I understand that the crew have now been released, and will be shortly leaving Murmansk by a steamer, which is now there. With regard to the remainder of the question, I would refer the Noble Lord to the reply which I have just given to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy).

Viscount CURZON: Does the hon. Gentleman's reply in regard to the crew apply specifically to the case of the captain, and are we to understand that he is still under detention or not; and, secondly, with regard to the terms of the Note, will it be convenient if I repeat my question this day week?

Mr. McNEILL: If the Noble Lord will repeat his question this day week, I may be able to give him an answer. With regard to the other part of his question, the answer does not refer to the captain, who, I believe, is still under detention.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is there any possibility of coming to an arrangement with regard to the 12 and three miles limit?

Mr. McNEILL: That is a very large question, which has been under discussion for a very long time, and I could not take it upon myself to give an answer.

CONFISCATED BRITISH PROPERTY.

Mr. GRATTAN DOYLE: 33.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have made or will make representations to the Soviet Trade Delegation that the total proceeds received in England from sales of confiscated property of British firms should be paid into a fund for the benefit of sufferers from Soviet legislation?

Mr. McNEILL: I fear we are not in a position to act as the hon. Member suggests, but he will be aware from papers which have been laid before the House and from repeated statements made by Members of this and the late Government of the anxiety felt and efforts made to protect the interests of
British subjects which have suffered by Soviet legislation.

Mr. DOYLE: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the trade agreement with the Soviet Government has for its effect to deprive British nationals of their remedy before British Courts of Law when property that has been confiscated or stolen from them is imported into or sold in Britain; and whether he proposes to remedy this?

Mr. McNEILL: I am of course aware of the consequences flowing from the judgment given in the Sagor appeal case and of the grounds upon which that judgment was based. Every effort will, as I have repeatedly stated, be made to protect the interests of former British property owners in Russia, but I cannot at present state the form which these efforts will assume.

Mr. DOYLE: Is it not time, in view of the known attitude of the Soviet Government, that some definite steps should be taken?

Mr. McNEILL: If my hon. Friend will look at my answer, I think he will find that I have answered that question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Under the trade agreement, were not the rights of British subjects who supplied goods to the Soviet recognised by that Government? Was there not a conference to be appointed to settle these matters; and why has that conference not been called together?

Mr. McNEILL: I must ask for notice of that question.

Mr. REYNOLDS: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the continued existence in England of the Soviet Trade Delegation prevents the return to British nationals of large properties that have been forcibly confiscated; and what action does he propose to take?

Mr. McNEILL: In answer to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I have just given to the hon. Member for North Newcastle (Mr. Doyle). The House is aware that the general question of the relations between His Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government is under discussion.

Mr. REYNOLDS: 37.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the moneys received by the Soviet Government as the result of sales to British companies of the confiscated property of British nationals is employed mainly in the purchase of material in other countries, and large sums of British money diverted from British industry to foreign countries with a resultant aggravation of unemployment in Britain; and does he contemplate taking steps in the matter?

Mr. McNEILL: I have no information on the subject of the first part of the question. I have no doubt that the Soviet Government, like ordinary merchants, try to sell in the dearest and buy in the cheapest market, and I can conceive of no scheme by which this practice could be altered by us in our own interest.

Lieut.-Col. Sir P. RICHARDSON: 38.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that 70,000 tons of kerosene, largely the property of British nationals, has been sold by the Soviet Government to a company registered in England; whether he has any information as to an option of sale for a further 130,000 tons; and whether, seeing that the effect of such sale is to provide money for the purchase of materials mainly in foreign countries and for anti-British propaganda purposes, he will take any action in the matter?

Mr. McNEILL: I have no information on the subject of this question beyond what has appeared in the newspapers. On that information, the reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Sir W. DAVISON: 42.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that British oil companies in Baku and Grozny, having at least 40,000 shareholders, have had their property confiscated by the Russian Soviet Government; that their shareholders have in many cases been reduced to poverty; and that oil products from these properties have since been sold for delivery to other companies by the Soviet Government; what action has been taken by the British Government to secure com-
pensation for British nationals whose property has been appropriated in this manner; and whether steps will be taken to prevent any British company from acquiring or selling in this country any products which have been appropriated from British owners in Russia?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer to the first and third parts of the question is in the affirmative. I have no doubt the confiscation of the Russian oilfields has had serious consequences for the shareholders. In reply to the fourth part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the published Report of the Conferences at Genoa and The Hague. His Majesty's Government have no power to prevent the sale in this country of goods appropriated by the Soviet Government, and recognised as their property by the English Courts.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does the Under-Secretary not see how necessary it is to terminate the trade agreement with Russia, seeing that these goods are being sold in this country?

Mr. McNEILL: That is a question of policy on which opinions may differ.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can there be any difference of opinion about stolen British goods being sold in Great Britain?

Viscount CURZON: Are we to understand that British subjects can no longer look to the British Government for any protection in this respect?

Mr. McNEILL: It would be a great mistake to make such an assumption.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Have we not already spent about £20,000,000 in trying to upset this Government?

OIL PRODUCTS.

Mr. DOYLE: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government is aware that the British company purchasing Russian oil products had given an undertaking to an international oil committee, set up for the mutual protection of interests, not to prejudice, directly or indirectly, the established rights of adherents to the committee; and
whether the action in purchasing Russian oil products does in fact prejudice these rights?

Mr. McNEILL: I have no information on the subject of this question beyond what has appeared in the newspapers. It would be no part of the duty of the Foreign Office to interpret the text of a private agreement between a number of oil companies, but if the published accounts of the transaction are accurate, the effect would seem necessarily to be as suggested by my hon. Friend.

Sir P. RICHARDSON: 39.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is prepared to take action with the purchasers of Russian oil products to bring about the cancellation of the agreements for sale on the score that such purchases are contrary to public interest?

Mr. McNEILL: It would be contrary to the practice of His Majesty's Government to interfere, in a case such as this appears to be, with the discretion of the companies concerned.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it in order to address questions to the British Government about a private committee in Paris?

Mr. SPEAKER: I could not see any reason for disallowing them, although they come near to being of a private nature.

Sir P. RICHARDSON: 40.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether representations have been made to His Majesty's Government by the French Government protesting against the purchase of Russian oil products by a British company?

Mr. McNEILL: The reply is in the negative.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 41.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can communicate the terms of the resolution for mutual protection arrived at between the members of the International Russian Oil Committee, whose property in Russia has been appropriated by the Soviet Government; and what steps have been taken to secure the payment of compensation to British citizens who have been deprived of their property in this way?

Mr. McNEILL: The resolution referred to has never been communicated to the Foreign Office. In reply to the last part of the question, I refer the hon. and gallant Member to the published accounts of the Conferences at Genoa and The Hague.

BRITISH AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY.

Mr. RILEY: 58.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the value and weight of agricultural machinery exported from Great Britain to Russia in the years 1913, 1920, 1921, and 1922, respectively?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: As the answer to this question contains tables of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following statement gives the weight and value of the exports of agricultural machinery, registered as consigned from the United Kingdom to Russia in each of the years specified.

(a) The produce or manufacture of the United Kingdom.

Tons.
£


1913
…
…
26,729
1,103,293


1920
…
…
149
15,180


1921
…
…
—
—


1922
…
…
13
4,991

(b) Foreign or Colonial manufacture.

Tons.
£


1913
…
…
8,932
273,118


1920
…
…
—
—


1921
…
…
369
26,843


1922
…
…
993
70,014

The figures for 1913 and 1920 relate to exports to pre-War Russia, those for 1921 and 1922 relate to exports to post-War Russia. Machinery consigned to countries bordering on Russia is not included, even though subsequently forwarded to Russia.

IMPORTS.

Mr. RILEY: 59.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the value of the exports to Russia from Great Britain, United States, and Germany, respectively, for the years 1913, 1920, 1921, and 1922?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: As the answer to this question contains tables of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

STATEMENT showing the total values of goods recorded as exported to Russia from
the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and Germany in the years 1913, 1920, 1921 and
1922, the values of the exports from the United States and from Germany being converted into
sterling at the average current rates of exchange.


—
United Kingdom.
United States.
Germany.


Produce of the United Kingdom.
Foreign and Colonial Produce.
Total Exports.





£
£
£
£
£


1913
…
…
18,103,000*
9,591,000*
27,694,000*
5,537,000†
43,277,000†


1920
…
…
11,992,000*
4,841,000*
16,833,000*
7,854,000†
320,000‡


1921
…

2,181,000‡
1,210,000‡
3,391,000




Jan.-June
3,257,000†
1,810,000‡


1921
…
774,000‡
§


July-Dec.




1922
…
…
3,679,000‡
1,038,000‡
4,717,000‡
6,775,000‡
║


* Pre-War Russia, including Finland.


† Pre-War Russia, except Finland.


‡ Post-War Russia, including Ukraine and the Far Eastern Republic.


§ May, 1921, to April, 1922. No particulars of the exports during
Jan.-April, 1921, are available.


║ Information not available.


NOTE.—With reference to the figures for 1920–22, it is to be noted that some goods exported to the States on the borders of Russia may have been forwarded to Russia.

KENYA (COFFEE PRODUCTION).

Mr. MOREL: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Tanganyika Government has embarked upon a policy of encouraging a native production of coffee in that territory; and why a similar policy cannot be adopted in the case of Kenya?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As regards the Tanganyika territory, I would refer to my reply of the 26th of March to the written question of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Richmond Division of Yorkshire. While I have no reason to suppose that the policy indicated in my reply to the hon. Member on the 26th April is not the best suited to the conditions of Kenya, his question will be brought to the notice of the Acting Governor, who will be requested to confer with the Government of Tanganyika before reporting.

Following is the answer:

Owing to territorial changes, it is not possible to give figures relating to the trade of Russia which are strictly comparable as between 1913 and later years.

TANGANYIKA.

EX-GERMAN SHIPS.

Mr. BRUFORD: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is proposed to dispose of the ex-German ships now lying at Dar-es-Salaam; what the cost of breaking up these vessels would be; and whether he will consider the possibility of sending them to Durban or some other suitable port to be broken up?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Two German vessels sunk at Dar-es-Salaam have been salved in connection with the clearing of the harbour, and the question of disposing of them is now under consideration. Attempts to obtain offers for their purchase have so far been unsuccessful; the suggestion that they should be sold to ship-breakers will be brought to the Governor's notice. I am not in a position to estimate the cost of breaking-up.

GOVERNOR (YACHT).

Mr. BRUFORD: 22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Governor of Tanganyika territory is provided with a yacht; and, if so, what is the cost of upkeep of that vessel?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The answer is in the negative.

GOVERNMENT HOUSE.

Mr. BRUFORD: 22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a new palace is being erected at Dar-es-Salaam, in Tanganyika territory, for the use of the Governor; and, if so, will he say what the cost of the building will be and explain the necessity at the present time of incurring that cost?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Owing to the complete destruction during the military operations of the German Government House at Dar-es-Salaam, it was necessary to provide accommodation for the British Governor of the Tanganyika territory. The work was put in hand in 1920, and the building is understood to be now complete. The total cost is estimated at £54,000, and has been distributed over three years.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how many square feet the residence covers, and has it a parlour?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not know; I cannot say.

Mr. SIMPSON: Is there a ball-room attached to this residence?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think not; I believe it perfectly follows the lines of the old German Governor's house. I remember seeing that; it had a very large verandah.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the whole of this £54,000 have to be found by the British taxpayer?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: They are raising over a million in local revenue, but there is undoubtedly a deficit, and some part of that, no doubt, will have to be paid by the British Government.

Captain BERKELEY: Was not this sum voted by the local Legislature?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There is no local legislature.

Major PAGET: Is it not necessary that The Governor should be suitably housed, in order to impress the natives?

PEACE TREATIES.

DISARMAMENT, GERMANY.

Sir W. DAVISON: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Germany is wilfully evading the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles for the reduction of her army to 100,000 effectives by the enlistment of a large armed police force on a military basis at the age of 18 years, who are to receive gratuities for war service and military pensions; what action is being taken by the Allied Powers in the matter; whether he can inform the House of the total number of rifles which have now been surrendered by Germany; and whether he is satisfied that the provisions of the Treaty as to the surrender of arms and munitions have been fully carried out?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness): I have been asked to reply. I am not in a position to state what may be in the mind of the German Government with regard to the intention of evading the provisions of the Peace Treaty alleged in this question, but it is known that just prior to the French occupation of the Ruhr the authorised army of 100,000 all ranks was considerably under establishment.

By the Boulogne Conference the German Government was allowed:

150,000 police to be armed at the rate of

1 rifle per 3 men;
1 short pistol per man;
340 heavy machine-guns;
150 armoured cars.

The Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control has agreed to the enlistment of this force for 12 years, the minimum age for enlistment being 18.

War service in the army during the late War counts towards police pension.

The pay and pensions, and conditions of service of the police are similar to those of the army.

In regard to the action being taken by the Allies, the reorganisation of the police is the first of five outstanding points raised in the Allied Collective Note of 29th September, 1922. This Note was
originally presented at the instigation of the War Office, and has again been insisted on in the Allied Note of 18th April, 1923.

War material surrendered to the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control up to 12th April, 1923, includes 4,560,861 small arms, 87,950 machine guns, 33,571 guns and 11,616 trench mortars.

Our military advisers are satisfied that the provisions of the Treaty with regard to the surrender of arms and munitions have been carried out to such an extent as to ensure that at the present time Germany is effectively disarmed.

The complete and loyal execution by Germany of the points contained in the Collective Note of 29th September, 1922, is however necessary to ensure the permanency of the military guarantees under the Treaty.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not time that we insisted on this matter of the police being dealt with, because, in view of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has just said, it is clear that they are only camouflaged soldiers; and does he not think that we should be represented side by side with the French in the Ruhr until this important question has been settled?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that question arises, and the hon. Member had better put it on the Paper.

REPARATIONS (GERMAN NOTE).

Mr. LAMBERT: 49.
asked the Prime Minister what action the Government has taken or proposes to take with regard to the German Note relating to reparations?

Mr. A. J. BENNETT: 51.
asked the Prime Minister if he is in a position to state the reply of the British Government to the latest financial offer by Germany; whether the British opinion on the matter has been formally asked by the Allies operating in the Ruhr; if so, how it has been or will be communicated to them: and, if not in agreement with their opinion, whether it will be communicated at all, and, if so, how, to Germany?

Captain W. BENN: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether a reply to the German offer has yet been despatched; if so, what are its terms; and whether the British Government was consulted as to the terms
of the French reply to the German Government?

Mr. BALDWIN: I hope to be in a position to make a statement on this subject to-morrow.

Mr. LAMBERT: May I repeat the question to-morrow, or will my right hon. Friend take another opportunity of dealing with the subject on another Motion?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think the most convenient way will be to arrange for a Private Notice question.

Captain BERKELEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing a White Paper containing the terms of the Note and the replies both of this Government and of the Allied Government in time for Thursday's Debate?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think that that would be practicable. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will await my statement to-morrow.

TURKEY (REFUGEES).

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: 44.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to the fact that the United States Government has stated that from next June onwards it cannot continue to organise and defray the costs of relief for refugees from Turkey, and that the French Government, in reply to the United States Secretary of State, declared that it would provide 1,600,000 francs towards the settlement of refugees in Syria, His Majesty's Government is prepared to make a further grant towards the relief of the refugees from Turkey?

Mr. McNEILL: The United States Government informed the Allied Ambassadors at Washington on 3rd April that the American Red Cross Society, which is a voluntary organisation, had decided to terminate its relief work in Greece on 30th June, and they suggested an exchange of views with the British, French and Italian Governments with a view to securing co-ordinated action for the liquidation of the relief problem. The United States Government was informed in reply that His Majesty's Government welcomed this suggestion, but would await definite proposals from the United States Government before taking further action. No further com-
munication from the United States Government has yet been received, and the question of making a further grant has not therefore arisen. I have no information regarding the alleged grant of 1,600,000 francs by the French Government for refugee work in Syria.

Mr. BUXTON: If it were a fact that the French Government made a grant would not the objection to a free grant by us be removed since Lord Balfour's promise of £50,000 would then hold good?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say that. All I can say is that we have responded in a favourable sense to the overtures from the United States Government, and we are awaiting a reply from them.

AIRSHIPS.

Captain BENN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet has come to any decision relative to the establishment of a company to run airships; and under the control of what Department of State would the operation of any such contract fall?

Mr. BALDWIN: Negotiations are proceeding with the parties interested.

Captain BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that no air work will be given to any Department other than the Air Ministry unless it is done with the consent of this House?

Mr. BALDWIN: I could not say that. Tim question has not yet been decided.

Captain BENN: Will the House be asked to ratify any such arrangement before a decision is arrived at?

Mr. BALDWIN: I shall have to look into that, because I am not sufficiently familiar with the question to give an answer.

IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.

Captain BENN: 50.
asked the Prime Minister what are the extensions of Imperial Preference which have already been announced on behalf of the Government as part of their policy?

Mr. BALDWIN: It has already been announced, as regards the proposed tax on imported malting barley, that it is intended to give a preference of one-third.

Captain BENN: Did not the Duke of Devonshire announce that the Government would still further extend the preference, and may I ask in what respect it is intended to extend it?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think we must wait until the Conference takes place.

AGRICULTURE.

CEREALS, WALES.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: 60.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what are the numbers of acres under cultivation in Wales of wheat, barley, and oats, respectively?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): The area of land in Wales returned as under these crops in 1922 was as follows:





Acres.


Wheat
…
…
35,656


Barley
…
…
61,413


Oats
…
…
202,508

CANADIAN CATTLE.

Sir MALCOLM MACNAGHTEN: 61.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to a report of the Medical Officer of Health of the Manchester Port Sanitary Authority stating that the first shipment of Canadian store cattle to that port included animals affected with pulmonary tuberculosis; and what steps have been, or will be, taken to protect the public against the dangers arising therefrom.

Sir R. SANDERS: Yes, Sir. The section in the Report, however, was not intended to suggest that Canadian cattle are affected with tuberculosis to any exceptional degree; indeed, it describes this consignment as "very healthy." With regard to the last part of the question, machinery is already in existence whereby inspectors of local authorities examine carcases and reject any which they consider unfit for human food.

BREAD (ENGLISH WHEAT).

Captain BOWYER: 62.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the recent achievement of the Buckingham branch of the National Farmers' Union in producing for 7d. a loaf of bread made entirely of English wheat flour; and, in view of the fact that this price is 2d. per loaf cheaper
than the ordinary bread, will he cause inquiries to be made and enable other parts of the country, as well as agriculture generally, to benefit by this achievement?

Sir R. SANDERS: I have heard with much satisfaction of this successful enterprise on the part of the Buckingham Branch of the National Farmers' Union. I understand that it has already been brought to the notice of all branches of the National Farmers' Union, and that many inquiries are reaching the Buckingham branch from other parts of the country. I see no reason why, if a sufficient demand is assured, arrangements should not be made throughout the country to place on sale bread made entirely of English wheat flour.

Mr. SIMPSON: Does this 7d. a loaf include overhead charges, such as rates, taxes and so on?

Sir R. SANDERS: It is the price at which the loaf is sold.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that a loaf produced entirely from English wheat is one which is in demand by the English consumer?

Captain BOWYER: Will the right hon. Gentleman satisfy himself by tasting the bread while he can get it?

Sir R. SANDERS: I shall be most happy to do so.

BARLEY.

Mr. RILEY: 64.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the amount of malting barley grown in England and Wales for the years 1920, 1921, and 1922; the total amount of barley imported into this country for the same years; and whether the bulk of the imported barley was used for grinding and feeding purposes?

Sir R. SANDERS: The quantity of barley imported into Great Britain in the years 1920, 1921 and 1922 was 569,000, 739,000 and 633,000 tons respectively. It is not possible to state how much of these quantities were used for grinding and feeding, but it is thought that on the average at least half of the imports are used for feeding livestock. The amount of the home-grown crop which is used for malting necessarily varies with the size of the crop, the suitability of the grain for malting, and the demand for malt. The
statistics of the quantities of barley used in brewing and distilling do not distinguish between home-grown and imported barley.

Mr. RILEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any estimate as to what is likely to be the amount of revenue from the proposed imposition of a 10s. duty on barley?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question must be put down.

Mr. N. BUXTON: Is it not a fact that the amount of imported malting barley is practically unaffected by the price, because it is required for quality, whether the price is high or low?

Sir R. SANDERS: I am afraid that, I am not a brewer.

CREDIT FACILITIES.

Major RUGGLES-BRISE: 65.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether a decision has yet been reached as to the channels through which it is proposed to make the advances to farmers of short-term credits under the Credit Facilities Scheme; whether it is proposed to make these advances through co-operative societies; and, if so, whether he will consider the claims of individual firms and traders?

Sir R. SANDERS: My hon. and gallant Friend will understand that it is impossible for me to make a categorical statement at this stage on the point which he raises. I can only suggest that he should await the terms of the Bill.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult both the bodies mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member, namely, the individual traders and the co-operative societies, before drafting his Bill?

Sir R. SANDERS: A Committee sat for months on this question, and, I believe, consulted every sort of interest affected.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (COAL PORTERS).

Mr. DUNCAN: 63.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that coal porters in other Government Departments work a normal week of 48 hours, including meal times; that, in fact, the whole class of employés covered by Agreement A 81 of the Civil Service Arbitration
Board work a normal week of 48 hours, including meal times; whether he can explain why a discussion of the coal porters' grievances in his Department with their trade union representatives is refused; and whether he will agree to receive the suggested deputation in the near future?

Sir R. SANDERS: I am not aware of the hours worked by coal porters in Government Departments other than in the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and, as explained, on the 18th instant, on my behalf by my hon. and gallant Friend the Comptroller of the Household, the working week for coal porters, as fixed by the Agreement mentioned, is 48 hours, and is not intended to include definite meal reliefs. In the circumstances, I cannot admit that the coal porters have any grievance, but if they have, they are aware that they can submit it to the the Departmental Whitley Council.

WAR OFFICE (TEMPORARY CLERKS).

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 99.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War the number, respectively, of male and female non-service temporary clerks at present employed in the War Office; and the number of temporary clerks who obtained over 50 per cent. of the total marks in the ex-service examinations?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The numbers in question, exclusive of female typists, are males, nil; females, 3. There are also ten ladies employed on work involving special knowledge of foreign languages. Frequent efforts have been made to replace these by ex-service men, but so far without success. I have no information as to the last part of the question.

SEWAGE DISPOSAL, RIVER LEA.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir RAYMOND GREENE: 69.
asked the Minister of Health, in view of the approach of summer, what progress has been made in the promised improvements to the sewage disposal arrangements of the various local authorities on the banks of the River Lea above Hackney; and whether he is satisfied that the progress made will prevent the recurrence this year of the contamination of the lower reaches of the river, which has every summer been a source of danger and annoyance to the inhabitants of the borough?

Lord EUSTACE PERCY (for the Minister of Health): My right hon. Friend is informed that some improvement has been effected, but not, he fears, of a very substantial nature. The chief difficulty is, of course, the heavy expenditure which would be involved I may add that he has no evidence that there is or has been danger to health. The matter is still under consideration by the local authorities concerned.

Mr. McENTEE: Is the Noble Lord aware that some of the authorities referred to in the question are at the present time receiving notice from the Lea Conservancy under which they will, in all probability, be prosecuted, and does not that prove the danger?

Lord E. PERCY: I have said that it was under consideration by the local authorities.

SCOTTISH FISHERIES (PROTECTION).

Mr. FREDERICK MARTIN: 85.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether, in view of the great and growing cost of policing the territorial waters of Great Britain by means of Fishery Board cruisers, he will consider the advisability of consulting with the Admiralty with a view to this duty being undertaken in future by the Royal Navy, especially as the detection and prevention of illegal trawling in inshore waters would afford valuable means of training for the officers and crews of destroyers, and in view of the fact that officers and men of the Royal Navy would welcome an opportunity of assisting in the preservation of a means of livelihood of the coast fishermen, who were their devoted comrades in the keeping of the seas during the War?

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): The suggestion made by the hon. Member has been considered from time to time in the past in consultation with the Admiralty. There is at present, as the hon. Member is aware, one Admiralty vessel on this patrol. The provision of additional vessels by the Admiralty would involve a heavy charge on naval funds, which it is doubtful if the Admiralty, under present circumstances, would be prepared to undertake. The Secretary for Scotland is prepared, however, to cause the suggestion to be again examined.

MEDICAL OFFICER, FRIZINGTON.

Mr. GAVAN DUFFY: 70.
asked the Minister of Health if he will, before giving his sanction to the appointment of a medical officer of health for the urban district area of Frizington, Cumberland, take into serious consideration the recommendation of the County of Cumberland medical officer of health that several of the small urban areas should, in the interests of efficiency and the proper administration of the laws of public health, be amalgamated under one full time medical officer instead of the present system of appointing officers who can do no effective work as medical officers of health without sacrificing the interests of their panel patients?

Lord E. PERCY: My right hon. Friend has received no formal representation for the issue of an Order to combine this with other districts for the purpose of appointing a whole-time officer. He has, however, tried to arrange for such an appointment to be made by agreement. As these efforts have not been successful, he has not thought it practicable to object to the district council's proposals to appoint a part-time officer, who has, however, been required to give a written undertaking to resign the appointment in the event of a whole-time officer being appointed. My right hon. Friend cannot accept the suggestion that no effective work can be done by part-time medical officers of health without prejudicing the interests of their panel (or other) patients.

Mr. DUFFY: Is the Noble Lord aware that the doctor nominated for this position at Frizington does not live in the place at all, and that some of his panel patients cannot find him when they want him?

Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Member will give me that information, I will inquire into it.

CANAL BOATS (LIVING-IN).

Mr. GOSLING: 71.
asked the Minister of Health whether it is intended to act on the recommendations of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the practice of living-in on canal boats, of which he was chairman?

Mr. GOSLING: 96.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware of the conditions under which
children on living-in boats on canals have to exist, and that a large proportion of them receive practically no education; and whether he is able to state if the recommendations of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Ministry of Health to inquire into the practice of living-in on canal boats, so far as they refer to the education of children, are likely to become effective?

Lord E. PERCY: I will answer these questions together. My right hon. Friend is aware that the conditions of life on canal boats are not favourable to the proper education of the children living in them, and he is anxious that this matter should be dealt with at the earliest favourable opportunity, but he regrets that it is not practicable to introduce legislation at the present time.

Mr. GOSLING: 72.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that one family, comprising the parents and nine children, whose ages range from 18 years to six months, and none of whom can read or write, are living on two canal boats, known as the Mars and Jupiter, and owned by the Midland and Coast Canal Carrying Company; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Lord E. PERCY: My right hon. Friend has no information as to this case, but he will make inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member.

TUBERCULOSIS, POPLAR.

Mr. MARCH: 77.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Poplar Tuberculosis Care Committee has received reports of 40 consumptive persons for whom it has been impossible to arrange living and sleeping accommodation which is either adequate for the patient or reasonably safe for the other occupants; and, if so, what action he proposes to take to safeguard the general public?

Lord E. PERCY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley on the 2nd instant, of which I will send him a copy.

LEATHER GLOVES (REPARATION DUTY).

Mr. W. THORNE: 84.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is
satisfied with the method in which the Customs and Excise officers are carrying out their duties in regard to the importation of leather gloves; if he is aware that German-made leather gloves are sent into Switzerland and then imported into this country to avoid Reparation Duty; and if he will take action in the matter?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Boyd-Carpenter): I have been asked to reply. The possibility of endeavours to evade payment of Reparation Levy by means of fictitious re-consignment from an intermediate country of goods obtained from Germany is a matter which receives the constant and close attention of the Customs authorities, and the particular case of leather gloves to which the hon. Member refers is at the present moment undergoing investigation.

HOUSING.

GUILDFORD (RURAL DISTRICT).

Mr. TREVELYAN: 73.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the population of the rural district of Guildford has increased 20 per cent. since 1911; and if, in view of this fact, any special provision has been made for housing in this area?

Lord E. PERCY: My right hon. Friend is aware that the population of the rural district of Guildford has increased by, approximately, 20 per cent. since 1911. 92 houses have been built by the district council under the State-assisted scheme and 107 houses were built under the Private Builders' Subsidy scheme. The population of the Borough of Guildford, which is surrounded by the rural district, has only increased by 46 per cent. since 1911. State assistance has been provided for the building in the borough of 251 houses by the Town Council, of 130 houses by the Onslow Garden Suburb Public Utility Society, and of 64 houses by private builders. The figures given do not include any houses provided without State assistance.

Mr. DOYLE: Is the Noble Lord aware that the industrial population has increased by over 20 per cent.?

HENDON.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 74.
asked the Minister of Health the percentage in-
crease in the number of houses in the urban district of Hendon since 1913; and if he intends to make special provision for the housing needs of such districts as this, whose population was enormously increased by the creation of war industries?

Lord E. PERCY: My right hon. Friend will ascertain whether the figures the hon. Member desires are obtainable and will communicate further with him. Increase of population will no doubt be one of the factors leading local authorities to submit and his Department to consider new construction under the facilities in the Housing Bill.

POPLAR.

Mr. MARCH: 75.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received any special representation from the Metropolitan Borough of Poplar as to the serious overcrowding in that area; and, if so, what action he proposes to take?

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member presumably refers to a recent deputation to the Ministry of Health from Poplar which asked for approval of the provision of a certain number of flats. My right hon. Friend anticipates that there will be no difficulty in giving such approval.

Mr. MARCH: 76.
asked the Minister of Health if he has now been able to take any action with regard to a family of five persons living in one room in the Borough of Poplar to which his attention was drawn in February last?

Lord E. PERCY: My right hon. Friend is unable to trace any such case to which his attention was drawn in February last. If the case in question is the one on which the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley put a question last Wednesday, I may refer him to the reply my right hon. Friend gave then.

APPLICATIONS.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: 78.
asked the Minister of Health if he will give a Return, showing the total number of applications for houses received by local authorities in Great Britain since the War, and the number of applicants who have been supplied with houses?

Lord E. PERCY: My right hon. Friend fears that such a Return would not only involve great labour and expense, but might also be misleading in view of
duplication of applications and the like. The total number of houses completed under Assisted Government Housing Schemes in England and Wales on 1st April last was 198,183. Statistics of the numbers of houses provided without Government assistance are not available.

SCOTLAND.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: 86.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health how many of the 8,950 houses in Scotland still to be provided under the Housing, Town Planning, etc. (Scotland), Act, 1919, and schemes approved there-under are in course of construction; how many will be completed within the next three months or so; and how many have not yet been contracted for, or have not yet been commenced?

Captain ELLIOT: According to the latest available information, 16,701 houses have been completed, leaving 8,849 still to be completed. 4,956 houses are under construction, and it is anticipated that about 2,600 of these will have been completed by 31st July next. The number of houses not contracted for was 2,929, and the number contracted for, but not commenced, 964.

BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: 79.
asked the Minister of Health to what extent the cost of building materials decreased after the withdrawal of the housing subsidy in 1921; and what percentage it has again increased since the introduction of the new Housing Bill?

Lord E. PERCY: Although a limit was put upon the Assisted Schemes in 1921, construction continued under the private builders' subsidy scheme until June, 1922, and the whole of the houses under the local authorities' assisted scheme are not yet completed. The decrease in the cost of materials, as required for the construction of a working-class house in the London area, between July, 1921, and April, 1923, was about 42 per cent. There is no evidence of any average increase of price since the introduction of the new Housing Bill.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Has the Noble Lord seen in the Press that cement shares have been jumping in value since the housing scheme was announced?

Lord E. PERCY: Yes, but the hon. Member does not refer to shares but to prices.

Captain BERKELEY: Is the Noble Lord aware that there has been a considerable increase in the price of light castings for houses since the Housing Bill was introduced?

Lord E. PERCY: My information is that there is nothing to show that there has been an average increase throughout the country.

Captain BERKELEY: I did not ask about an average increase. I asked whether there was an increase in the cost of light castings.

Lord E. PERCY: Yes, and I replied I am informed there is no average increase.

PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 80.
asked the Minister of Health if, under the Housing (No. 2) Bill, the would-be builders of small houses have any appeal to the Ministry when their own local authorities show a disinclination to operate the provisions of the Measure affecting private enterprise?

Lord E. PERCY: No, Sir. But my hon. Friend will observe that the Bill provides that where a local authority proposes to build houses themselves they must satisfy the Minister that the needs of their area can best be met in this way.

Sir W. de FRECE: Will the Noble Lord issue for general information a detailed guide as to the procedure to be adopted when these cases arise?

Lord E. PERCY: My right hon. Friend will consider that point.

EX-GERMAN SHIPS.

Mr. W. THORNE: 83.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that no fewer than 420 ships, ranging from trawlers to passenger ships and liners, were handed over in pursuance of the inter-Allied agreement, and that the purchasers still owe the Government £2,876,507; if he can give any reasons why the various shipowners have not paid that money to the Government; and if he will take action in the matter?

Viscount WOLMER: As explained in my answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow on the 3rd instant, in certain cases the original contract of sale of the reparation ships provided for payments of a portion of the purchase price in instalments. The amount outstanding in those instalments at the end of last month was £2,465,605 9s. 6d., and this is being collected as and when the payments fall due.

Mr. McENTEE: Is interest being charged?

Viscount WOLMER: Yes, in every case except two, where it is provided that interest shall not be charged.

Dr. SALTER: Is it not a fact that certain companies to which these ships were sold are now in liquidation?

Viscount WOLMER: All these payments have been made to date.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

WEST YORKSHIRE REGIMENT (EX-SERGEANT HALEY).

Mr. LEACH: 88.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will examine the case of ex-Sergeant Thomas Haley, of 360, Shetcliffe Lane, Dudley Hill, Bradford, late No. 240,320, 5th reserve battalion West Yorkshire Regiment, who enlisted on 4th August, 1914, served with honour, and was discharged on 19th February, 1919, with a fracture of the skull, receiving a pension for 18 months (Z/W.Y.16,475); and whether now, despite medical evidence by Dr. P. J. McKenna, of Bradford, that his War hurt unfits him for his work as wool sorter, he can secure the return of his pension?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Captain Craig): A medical board held in July, 1920, found no remaining disablement, and between that date and March of this year there was no application to the Ministry. In the meantime the nil award became final under the War Pensions Act, 1921, subject to the right of appeal to the tribunal, which, however, was not exercised within the time limit allowed.

Mr. LEACH: Is there no chance of this man having his case reopened?

Captain CRAIG: I am afraid not. From July, 1920, until March this year the man took no steps of any sort to deal with the matter.

Mr. LEACH: Should not that be regarded as in his favour?

Captain CRAIG: No.

TUBERCULAR CASE (M. NOCTOR).

Mr. GAVAN DUFFY: 89.
asked the Minister of Pensions if a further inquiry can be made in the case of M. Noctor (2/M.N./1,466), now an inmate of the tuberculosis colony at Englethwaite, Carlisle, and who was certified by two private medical practitioners as being affected by tuberculosis owing to his war service, after which his claim for a pension was rejected by the Army medical officers at Newcastle and Carlisle as being in no such way affected; and whether, in the circumstances of this equal division of medical opinion, he will arrange for a fuller examination by a medical referee?

Captain CRAIG: My right hon. Friend has not yet been able to complete his inquiries into this case, but he hopes to be in a position to communicate with the hon. Member at an early date.

POST OFFICE.

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH CLERKS.

Mr. ERNEST ALEXANDER: 91.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has received from the National Federation of Postal and Telegraph Clerks a request for an interview regarding its claim to official recognition; and, if so, whether he is prepared to receive the deputation?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have received this request and I am arranging to receive a deputation from the federation.

POSTAL DELIVERIES, CLEATOR.

Mr. GAVAN DUFFY: 92.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, having regard to the industrial and business needs of the Wath Brow and Cleator districts of the parish of Cleator, Cumberland, he will, at the earliest possible date, restore
the evening delivery of postal packets in those districts, seeing that two deliveries a day had been in existence for many years before the War, and even during the War until the national emergency became so great that they had to be suspended temporarily, as the official notice intimated?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am having inquiry made and will write to the hon. Member.

Mr. DUFFY: In view of the fact that in the 12th Century there was a daily delivering of letters in Cleator, is it right that the right hon. Gentleman's Department should revert to the habits of the 12th Century?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member has been very kind in giving me previous information about Cleator, but he omitted to give me that fact. I will note it now.

ADVISORY COUNCIL (RECOMMENDATIONS).

Sir W. de FRECE: 93.
asked the Postmaster-General if he can state the chief recommendations affecting improvements urged by his Advisory Council of business men, which it has not been found possible to adopt within the past year?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The recommendations of the Post Office Advisory Council are made to me in confidence, and I regret, therefore, I cannot give the information asked for by my hon. Friend.

DEFECTIVE CHILDREN (SPECIAL SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 94.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many local educational authorities made special school accommodation for mentally and physically defective children during 1922; how many authorities were permitted to open new special schools; how many were refused; and, of those refused, on what grounds?

Lord E. PERCY: During the year ending the 31st December, 1922, 90 local education authorities in England and Wales were providing special school accommodation for mentally or physically defective children. Five authorities were allowed, and seven were, on financial
grounds, refused, permission to open new schools.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 95.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of mentally defective children and the number of physically defective children who are at present awaiting suitable special school accommodation in England and Wales?

Lord E. PERCY: As the answer is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, publish the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the statement:

Any figures which I can give are only approximate, both because I have not complete returns from all authorities, and because it is impossible to formulate any precise standard of defectiveness or to secure its uniform application in all areas. In such a matter considerable allowance must always be made for the variation of individual judgment. It is estimated that there are about 28,500 mentally defective children in England and Wales who might benefit by admission to special schools, in which there is accommodation for about 16,000. About 10,500 of these children are in public elementary schools, and about 2,500 are not at school at all. Similarly, there are about 109,000 physically defective children who might benefit by admission to special schools, in which there is accommodation for about 14,000; 74,000 are in public elementary schools; 7,000 in other institutions; and 14,000 are not attending any school. More detailed particulars will be found on page 211 of the Report of the Board's Chief Medical Officer for 1920, and on page 16 of the Chief Medical Officer's Report for 1921.

BRITISH WAR GRAVES, FRANCE.

Mr. McENTEE: 98.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War what is the area of land in France used as a burial ground for British soldiers; what is the nature of the control over such land by the British Government; under what terms is the land held; and what rent or other payment, if any, is made by the British Government to the French Government for such land?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I regret that I am not yet in a position to estimate
the total extent of the very numerous areas in question, many of which have not yet been delimited. The French Government have passed special legislation dedicating these areas as perpetual war cemeteries, and full control over them for that purpose is exercised, on behalf of the British and Dominion Governments, by the Imperial War Graves Commission, who are duly recognised by the French Government. By the generosity of that Government, no rent or other charge is payable in respect of the land.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SILICOSIS).

Mr. W. THORNE: 101.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any provision will be made in the amending Workmen's Compensation Bill to bring in the men who suffer from silicosis in the wet-grinding industry?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridgeman): No such provision will be needed, as special powers are given by the Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis) Act, 1918, to make a scheme of compensation for any industry involving exposure to silica dust. A comprehensive inquiry by the Factory Department into the conditions of the different sections of the grinding industries has recently been completed, and as soon as the Report of this inquiry is presented, I propose to ask the Departmental Committee which is now sitting to consider and report on a scheme for the grinding industries.

INTERNATIONAL POLICE CONFERENCE.

Mr. HAYES: 102.
asked the Home Secretary whether the visit of General Sir W. T. F. Horwood, the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, to America is an official one; if so, the purpose of same; and whether the cost will be borne by the police fund?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The visit is an official one, for the purpose of attending the International Police Conference. The cost will be borne by the Metropolitan Police Fund.

HOUSE PROPERTY (INCOME TAX ASSESSMENTS).

Captain MARTIN: 103.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give directions that, in the re-assessment for Income Tax of extra-Metropolitan house property now proceeding, special consideration with a view to the avoidance of hardship shall be given to occupying owners who, in order to secure decent accommodation for their families, have sunk their capital in the purchase of their houses at greatly enhanced prices, but whose incomes would not, justify payment of rentals representing more than a much smaller percentage upon such outlay than they would have obtained from an investment in any other good security?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained the basis of the re-valuation now being made for Income Tax purposes in replies which he has recently given to a number of questions on this subject. In particular, I would refer to the reply given on the 3rd May to a question standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Surrey. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of that reply, from which he will see that there is no intention of determining the annual value of property by reference to the enhanced prices at which it may have been purchased in the circumstances suggested in the question.

Mr. HARRIS: Has not the inner Metropolitan area been increased to the same extent as it is now proposed to increase the outside area?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: Re-valuation of the Metropolitan area has taken place, as the hon. Member knows, prior to this.

Mr. McENTEE: In view of the very great importance attached to this matter outside, will the hon. Gentleman circulate to all Members of the House the information which he says he will send to the hon. Member?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The reply which my right hon. Friend gave is published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. BECKER: Is it the Government's intention to give any concession in regard to these enormously high assessments?

Mr. SPEAKER: That cannot now be answered.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 107.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the reason why the Inland Revenue Department, for the purposes of the assessment of real property, is not able to accept the valuation of the local authorities, who must be well informed on the subject; whether he is aware that, even after the increase of the district valuation by local authorities, there is often at least a 15 per cent. margin of difference between this and the Government re-assessment for Inhabited House Duty; that this all-round increase of valuation will throw a heavy burden on tenants, who will ask for reduced rents; and that, in these circumstances, the owners of all property will be seriously prejudiced by increased taxation on the one hand and by reduced rents on the other?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: Outside the metropolis the rating valuation has never governed the Income Tax and Inhabited House Duty assessment, which is arrived at upon a different statutory basis. In the main, the Income Tax Schedule A assessment is governed by the rent actually paid for the property assessed. No doubt differences will exist now as in the past between the two valuations, but I have no information as to their extent. It is no doubt true that the re-valuation—displacing out of date valuations made in 1910—will cause some increase in the Inhabited House Duty charge, but that duty is so light that any such increase is unlikely in the extreme to have any prejudicial effect on rent levels.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in many thousands of cases, hundreds of thousands of fresh cases, people who pay small rents of 5s., 6s. or 7s. a week Inhabited House Duty will be charged, and that that Inhabited House Duty cannot be collected now from these people?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I am not aware of the numbers involved.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will some latitude be given to people who are unable to get their appeals in within the 21 days?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I have already stated that the 21 days is a purely nominal period, and there is no reason to believe that this number of days will be adhered to rigidly.

Sir J. BUTCHER: In regard to the three weeks' notice for appeal, will not the hon. and gallant Gentleman give some Statutory sanction to the extension of time, and not leave it to individual authorities?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer say how far he proposes to go with the business tonight in the event of his getting the suspension of the Eleven o'clock rule?

Mr. BALDWIN: I propose the suspension of the Eleven o'clock rule simply by way of precaution. I hope to get the first five Orders.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order Sittings of the House."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

The House divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 92.

Division No. 134.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Berry, Sir George
Butt, Sir Alfred


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Betterton, Henry B.
Cadogan, Major Edward


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Camplon, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Blundell, F. N.
Cautley, Henry Strother


Apsley, Lord
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Brass, Captain W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Churchman, Sir Arthur


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Briggs, Harold
Clarry, Reginald George


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Clayton, G. C.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Barnston, Major Harry
Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.


Becker, Harry
Bruford, R.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Buckingham, Sir H.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Cope, Major William


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Butcher, Sir John George
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)


Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Doyle, N. Grattan
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Ednam, Viscount
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lorden, John William
Sandon, Lord


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lorimer, H. D.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Lumley, L. R.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.


Falcon, Captain Michael
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Skelton, A. N.


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Mercer, Colonel H.
Sparkes, H. W.


Frece, Sir Walter de
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Furness, G. J.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stanley, Lord


Ganzoni, Sir John
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Garland, C. S.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Gates, Percy
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Goff, Sir R. Park
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honito[...])
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Greaves-Lord, Walter
Murchison, C. K.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Tubbs, S. W.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Halstead, Major D.
Nield, Sir Herbert
Wallace, Captain E.


Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Waring, Major Walter


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Paget, T. G.
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Harrison, F. C.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Wells, S. R.


Harvey, Major S. E.
Pease, William Edwin
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Hawke, John Anthony
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Whitia, Sir William


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Penny, Frederick George
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Winterton, Earl


Hewett, Sir J. P.
Peto, Basil E.
Wise, Frederick


Hiley, Sir Ernest
Pielou, D. P.
Wolmer, Viscount


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Preston, Sir W. R.
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hood, Sir Joseph
Privett, F. J.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hopkins, John W. W.
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Houfton, John Plowright
Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Remnant, Sir James



Hudson, Capt. A.
Reynolds, W. G. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hughes, Collingwood
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Hurd, Percy A.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Gibbs.


Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley




NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Groves, T.
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)


Ammon, Charles George
Grundy, T. W.
M'Entee, V. L.


Attlee, C. R.
Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Barnes, A.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
March, S.


Batey, Joseph
Harris, Percy A.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Maxton, James


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Millar, J. D.


Bonwick, A.
Hinds, John
Morel, E. D.


Br[...]ant, Frank
Hirst, G. H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Broad, F. A.
Hogge, James Myles
Muir, John W.


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Nichol, Robert


Chapple, W. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Phillipps, Vivian


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Potts, John S.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Kirkwood, D.
Pringle, W. M. R.


Duffy, T. Gavan
Lansbury, George
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Duncan, C.
Lawson, John James
Riley, Ben


Ede, James Chuter
Leach, W.
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Falconer, J.
Lee, F.
Rose, Frank H.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Saklatvala, S.


Gosling, Harry
Linfield, F. C.
Salter, Dr. A.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)




Simpson, J. Hope
Thornton, M.
Whiteley, W.


Snowden, Philip
Trevelyan, C. P.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Stephenson, Lieut. Colonel H. K.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Stephen, Campbell
Webb, Sidney
Wintringham, Margaret


Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Sullivan, J.
Wheatley, J.



Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)
Mr. Spoor and Mr. Lunn.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Mr. Foot, Mr. John Jones, and Mr. John Robertson; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Harris, Mr. Thomas Henderson, and Mr. Mardy Jones.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Lieut.-Colonel Croft; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. William Hutchison.

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D: Mr. Willey.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SPECIAL CONSTABLES BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. SPEAKER: The new Clause standing first on the Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy)—
Special constables enrolled under this Act shall not be employed in any trade dispute
is not one which I can select in its present form, but the point with which it deals is covered by a later Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would prefer, myself, the Clause which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Newcastle. It covers the same point.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Employment outside police district.)

Special constables enrolled under this Act shall not be employed outside their own police district.—[Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
4.0 P.M.
The object of this Clause is to insure that special constables employed under this Bill shall be employed only in their own district. If the Home Secretary is going to accept this Cause, I will content myself with moving it formally, but as he makes no sign, I take it that he is going to attempt to oppose it, in which case I hope to convert either him or his faithful followers, like the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman), who are open to conversion on such a subject. This Bill is to be used for enrolling an auxiliary body of policemen, and in the Second Reading Debate I pressed the Home Secretary to declare whether he intended to use these auxiliaries in trade disputes, or whether they were going to be used simply in putting down riots, and in combatting the aliens in our midst, which one hon. Gentleman on the opposite
side said was his principal reason for supporting the Bill. I did not get any definite statement from the right hon. Gentleman. What was done in Committee I do not know, as I was not on the Committee. The proceedings were not reported, and I was relying on reading the OFFICIAL REPORT. But I did obtain an account of what went on through the courtesy of an hon. Member, who was present. I could never gather from the right hon. Gentleman whether he intended so to frame the rules, which are what matters, so as to preclude the employment of these police in industrial disputes. There is an Amendment further down on the Paper which will raise that matter definitely, but I only mention it now because I think that the consideration of that Amendment will strengthen the position of those who are in favour of this Amendment. It is most essential that these auxiliaries should be employed only in their own district. I will give the reason very briefly. If you are going to send strangers into a district and they do not know the conditions and the people, the local inhabitants, especially in a trade dispute, will object to their importation from another part of the country. They will naturally object. Imagine a dispute in Lancashire, and Yorkshiremen being brought in to deal with it, or imagine a dispute in North Wales and men from South Wales being brought in to deal with it. Local prejudice will be aroused. Any self-respecting locality would object very much to its neighbouring town, possibly its rival, sending auxiliary police to keep order in their district. The law of the land is that the civil power may call upon all well-disposed citizens to assist in preserving order, and it is an insult to the law-abiding people of any district to bring in outsiders to keep order. In the case of the Metropolitan Police being drafted into a district where their services are needed, as, for example, when they were sent to Tonypandy, you are dealing with a special body of men who have been trained for a very long time for their peculiar, important, and delicate duties. On the whole, they do their work well and sympathetically. I say "on the whole," because there are always bound to be regrettable exceptions, but, speaking broadly, the Metropolitan Police and the regular police all over the
country, when sent to some danger centre, do carry out their duties very well indeed.
But that is totally different from calling in these untrained auxiliaries, who, in some cases, may be ill-chosen men, because, if you are not going to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan), not to use these auxiliaries in trade disputes, you are not going to get trade unionists for one thing. I do not want to deal with that Amendment now, but, unless that Amendment be accepted, I am afraid you will have these auxiliaries drawn from only one or two classes of the population. The danger of a specially picked body of people, not drawn from the whole body politic of law-abiding citizens, will be intensified when you bring strangers into a district to do that which the local inhabitants ought to be called upon to do by the ancient common law of the land. They will not know the local conditions, and they will not be in sympathy with the local people, because they will be strangers and not trained police. They will not, therefore, I am afraid, take the careful attitude that we expect of the trained police in all cases of civil disorder. Those are my reasons—at any rate, my first reasons—for moving this new Clause, and I hope that they are sufficient to show that it is absolutely necessary. [Interruption.] I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will not think that they will put me off my argument. After all, I had a good training in keeping the trend of my argument in the last Parliament.
This Clause is a very reasonable one, and I hope that it is going to be accepted. It is not framed with any sinister idea of making this force useless, or anything of that sort. I still say that these auxiliary police will be of value only in their own districts where they know the people. To send a strange man into a strange town, where he may get lost, is ridiculous. If you send strangers into towns which they do not know, and send them, perhaps, into the outlying parts, where there are narrow streets, they will probably get lost, and it will put a strain upon them which is not fair. For these reasons I hope that this very reasonable Clause will be accepted, and, if I have not convinced the Home Secretary of its
necessity before, I hope that my very temperate speech will have effected his conversion.

Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to second the Motion.
I hope that the Home Secretary will see his way to accept this Clause. It seems to me, if this Clause be accepted, no harm need be done to the efficiency or the value of the force on the basis of the ostensible object for which it has been formed. The case made for the continuance of this force by the right hon. Gentleman on the Second Reading of the Bill was a desire to maintain in existence the force of special constabulary which proved of great value during the War. I have no desire to offer any criticism of that force. I believe that it has been a very valuable force. I believe also that large numbers of the men who were members of it during the War are anxious to continue under the new régime, but I think it is useful, when we are making statutory provision for its permanence, that we should take precaution against its possible abuse. I believe that the great majority of those who have hitherto been in this force believe that they will be employed in the future on duties in connection with the locality in which they themselves live and in which, indeed, they will be most competent to give assistance in preserving the peace. That is all that this new Clause suggests. If they were used in their own locality, it would be a relief to the ordinary constabulary there, and, consequently, all the ostensible objects of the Measure would be substantially achieved.
Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman does not accept this new Clause it may give ground for some of the suspicions which are entertained regarding this Bill, as to the ulterior object which the promoters have in view. I do not wish to suggest that there is any substance in these suspicions, but I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that if he accepts this Clause he will do a great deal to dissipate these suspicions and to create public confidence in the force. I do not wish to make any special reference to what was said on the Second Reading of the Bill about the possibility of a Fascisti movement in this country. If it were possible to shift these men from one part of the country to another and to have a kind of mobilisation of
them in some particular area whereby men were drafted into an area with which they were not acquainted, then, I think, there would be some justification for a belief that that was the object of the force. During the Second Reading it was only from hon. Members above the Gangway that any suggestion of such danger was made, but since then there has been a speech made by the ex-Prime Minister (Mr. Lloyd George) at Manchester, in which he alluded to this Fascisti danger. This danger, therefore, is now entertained as a reasonable hypothesis by responsible people in this country. It is admitted by the followers of the ex-Prime Minister that it is a substantial danger. The force which is provided for in this Bill has been linked in large sections of the public mind with this danger. I suggest, therefore, that, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to disabuse people's minds of this erroneous idea, all he has to do is to accept this new Clause and also the Amendment which will be subsequently proposed, I believe, by the hon. Member for Central Newcastle. These are perfectly reasonable requests to make, and I suggest that by accepting this new Clause, the right hon. Gentleman would do a great deal to facilitate the further progress of his Bill.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridgeman): The hon. and gallant Member who moved this new Clause relied less on its intrinsic merits than on another Amendment standing on the Paper, and certain suspicions which he attached to the possible use of this force. I missed in his speech any particular reference to his own Clause which was likely to convince me and make me change my mind. Probably there is some misapprehension on this point. The special constables are enrolled for, and usefully employed in, their own police district. They have to be resident either in or in the neighbourhood of the place for which they are appointed special constables, and the only exception to their employment there is if in some adjoining district—merely an adjoining district—the special constables demand assistance they can by arrangement obtain it from an adjoining police area where there are special constables. That is under Section 6 of the Special Constables Act, 1831, and I am merely
following an old and very good precedent.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I want to get the point clearly. Do we understand that the Act precludes bodies of special constables being taken, for example, from Leeds to Liverpool, or long distances by train?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes. Section 6 empowers the justices of any county adjoining where special constables have been appointed and are serving, by agreement with the justices who appoint them, to order special constables to act in the adjoining county if any extraordinary circumstances exist which render it expedient to do so. The same provision exists for an exchange between the Metropolitan area and the City of London. I think, therefore, that the danger which the hon. Gentlemen have foreseen is rather imaginary, and I do not see any reason for departing from the practice which has hitherto prevailed. If they are required and it is the wish of that district that they should come in, then they may come to the assistance of the police in that district immediately adjoining their own.

Mr. HAYES: The point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) was not so much in reference to an adjoining police area, but rather that is was unwise for special constables to carry out constabulary duties in any area other than that in which they are resident. It will help us with subsequent Amendments if the Home Secretary could tell us whether the present Regulations, made under the Special Constables Act, 1914, are to be continued under this Bill, or whether we are to have a completely new set of Regulations. We hope that the Home Secretary will bear in mind the spirit of this new Clause, so that even in adjoining counties to which he may send special constables the Regulations will not be put in force. The reason is this: We may get a large number of special constables, say, in the South of Yorkshire, and they may be sent to an adjoining county, in which they would be strangers just as much as they would be if sent to the other end of the Kingdom. I would emphasise the point that it is a positive danger for special constables to perform constabulary duties in such adjoining areas. The special constables would be sent elsewhere to perform their duties only in connection with emergencies. When there
are emergencies there is always a good deal of strong local feeling. We cannot do better than bear in mind some of the rather tragic circumstances that have arisen at different times from the importation into other areas of even the regular police.
In 1911, during the time of the transport workers' strike, when the transportation of goods and merchandise was held up, we had what was unfortunately known, and what will continue to be known, as "Red Sunday" in Liverpool, when the dockers came into conflict with the police and large numbers of the Birmingham police were severely injured, as also were large numbers of the dockers. There are Members on the Labour benches who will confirm my statement that the attitude of the dockers in connection with that conflict was not so much one of indignation towards the police of Liverpool as of indignation that might be summed up in a colloquial phrase, "We do not mind being knocked about by our own coppers, but we are not going to be knocked about by the Brummagem men." It may be rather a crude way of expressing it, but I want the House to get the atmosphere in these industrial disputes. We have to cater for a situation which may arise if the Home Secretary does not see fit to accept certain Amendments which appear later on the Paper. There is a possibility that under the Regulations to be made special constables may not always act under the constabulary authority. I know that on the Second Reading of the Bill we had a semi-assurance from the Government that special constables would act under the constabulary authority. But I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Regulations which were made by the Home Office under the Special Constables Act, 1914. The right hon. Gentleman will there find that the Government very carefully preserved to themselves the right to put special constables under the direction and control of "such other authority as the Secretary of State may designate." That is full of importance.
I realise the soundness of the argument that, where there is trouble and disorder, it is necessary that order should be restored at the earliest possible moment. But there is a bounden and inherent duty by common law and statute law, upon all citizens to maintain order amongst them-
selves. I cannot see the necessity for importing special constables into a locality to preserve order among people whose duty it is, by the common law and statute law, to preserve order themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am not referring now to the area of Kensington. If we were dealing with that particular area, there are, I believe, Noble Lords and even Members of the present Government who, if it had been a question of looking after law and order, would have been put into the Tower of London for certain acts of rebellion in 1913. I want to make provision for the atmosphere which we think would be created when we called out the special constabulary. If the Home Secretary is to call out numbers of special constables, and is to exercise the power contained in an existing Regulation by placing the special constables under the authority of a military officer, or under the commanding officer of the unit that is sent for duty into an industrial area, or to take them out of the control of the police authorities altogether, he will create a very dangerous position. It is not so much the present Home Secretary of whom we are afraid. We believe that the present Home Secretary—I am not saying this in the hope that he will concede us the point in this particular Clause—has a mentality that is very much in favour of peaceful persuasion. But, we have had Home Secretaries who have been Napoleons when it came to a question of law and order. I remember the Sidney Street disturbance; I recollect that I was called out for duty in connection with that disturbance, and I think I was rather more afraid of handling firearms than were the people against whom we had to direct our activities.
I want to make provision, not for the present Government only, but for succeeding Governments and Home Secretaries who will deal with this matter according to their points of view. We have made out a very reasonable case for the principle that no special constable shall perform constabulary duties in any area other than that in which he is resident. If this new Clause is accepted by the Home Secretary, we shall help him to maintain order in a way that, I am sure, will be very acceptable to him. We cannot legislate the resentment of people who consider that they are suffering under a grievance into channels of peacefulness
by employing outside people. The principle of the Bill, unfortunately, is not likely to help the tranquillity of the community. What it will do is to assist—I do not say that it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, but I know how the Bill will operate in practice—the bad employer in bringing about wage reduction movements—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I said "the bad employer." I hope I shall not get too many protests from hon. Members opposite. In the event of wage reduction movements, and also in the event of conflict with trade unions, this Bill, together with the other Acts of Parliament that have recently been placed on the Statute Book—

Mr. SPEAKER: We must not discuss the Bill as a whole until we get to the Third Reading. We must deal only with the particular Amendment, which refers to special constables going outside a given district.

Mr. HAYES: With more experience of the House I shall, perhaps, be able to avoid these pitfalls. The question that we are arguing is really designed to help the Government in maintaining order without having recourse to sterner measures. We are very anxious that the House should benefit from the experience alike of the industrial representatives in this House, who on the one hand have had charge of what at times have been riotous elements, and on the other hand from the experience—it may be a peculiar coalition, but it is a good one—of a representative who knows what constabulary work is and has actually been in conflict with the people whom the industrialists represent. From our combined experience we say that the House would be well advised to take these points into consideration if they are really honest and sincere in desiring that there shall be no difficulties.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: I listened carefully to the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. I agree with the Home Secretary that the House did not hear from them a single argument in favour of the Amendment. It was not until we came to the last speaker that we had any real arguments in favour of this change in the Bill. There have been three arguments. The first was that if the Amendment was accepted, the hon. Member
would be able to guarantee the preservation of order. The second was that a "copper" in Liverpool could knock about the Liverpool people without their objecting, but that they objected to—

Mr. HAYES: I would not like to be, misquoted. I did not say that a "copper" could knock about Liverpool people, but that the industrial worker in Liverpool held a point of view that was equivalent to his saying, "We do not mind so much being knocked about by our own constables, but we do object to being knocked about by outsiders."

Mr. HARMSWORTH: They object to someone coming in from outside. The third argument was that each town and each part of a town should look after the preservation of order in its own district without any help from outside. Taking the question as a whole, there are very few arguments against the Bill. The Amendment would mean that if there were a disturbance in Liverpool and the rioters got the better of the local police, the Government would be unable to send police to Liverpool from any other part of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If Liverpool were an entirely self-supporting city and had no connection with any other town, and if it did not matter in the least to us in London or to anybody else in England whether Liverpool was in insurrection or not, I would, perhaps, agree that it did not make much difference. But if Liverpool were in insurrection it would affect London and every other district in the country, because if the ships coming into and going out of Liverpool were stopped the result would be a dislocation of the commerce between ourselves and the rest of the world. That is a very pertinent fact to be borne in mind. We could not for one moment allow a city like Liverpool so to get out of hand, whatever the cause, that it would dislocate the whole commercial prosperity of the country. I cannot see anything in the argument that there is an ulterior motive behind the formation of this force, and that it might be turned into a sort of fascisti, which might, in the case of disturbance, be used to put down turbulent elements. I am perfectly certain that if this country ever came to the point where a fascisti movement was needed we should not have to wait long before such a body was formed to put down disturbances. But at the present
time there is no question of anything happening here that would call for such a body. Why, then, should we raise the question?
We do not look forward to any such state of affairs as came to pass in Italy, when communications were cut and the ordinary life of the community could not go on as before. We do not look forward to any such state of affairs in this country, and therefore why should hon. Members object to the special constables being kept on, and to their being used in parts of the country other than the area to which they happen to belong? I do not suppose we shall ever see them used in that way; I certainly hope we shall not, but if the occasion should arise, and if some particular district should get so much out of hand that it became necessary to use these forces in order to maintain communications, I am perfectly certain that, whatever Government was in power—even if it were composed of hon. Members opposite—they would see the necessity of keeping order, and they would use the same methods in keeping order as those now proposed. They would do so, not only because it was necessary to deal with that particular town or district where the disorder arose, but because it is a matter affecting every person in every part of the country, and as a Government acting for the whole country, it would be for them to do the best they could to deal with the situation as a whole.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. Member who has just sat down, and I dare say other hon. Members opposite, misunderstand the attitude of the Labour party and the Liberal party towards this Measure. When we urge that special constables should not be used outside their own areas, we do not object to the use of troops or of ordinary constables in different parts of the country should the necessity arise. We object to the use of special constables in that way, and the reason for our objection is perfectly simple. It must be obvious to every Member of the House—and, if not, it will be very soon after the formation of this body—that nine out every ten, nay almost 99 out of every hundred, who join the special constabulary will be men who are opposed to Labour. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] That really must be understood before hon. Members can under-
our opposition to the Bill. You are selecting from the community those people who will be hostile to Labour, and you are ruling out absolutely all trade unionists. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Unless certain Amendments which have been put down are accepted, this force will be used in trade disputes to blackleg, to act as strike-breakers, and that is the whole point of the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is now covering an Amendment which is on the Paper and which I have ruled is to be taken afterwards, and it is not in order to discuss it now.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I was endeavouring to make clear to hon. Members why we want to prevent the special constables being used outside their own localities. We object to any additional facilities being given to special constables. We do not wish to have them employed at all in trade disputes. We do not wish to have strike breaking, and because we do not want a force of that sort set up we object to their being used in Lancashire if they come from Yorkshire. It is true the explanation of the Home Secretary makes the position less dangerous than some of us thought it was. It is obvious that they cannot bring in special constables say from London to Liverpool, and that is something to the good. I do not know whether some hon. Members opposite will not suggest that we should alter the Bill in this respect and widen its powers. As it is, they could send special constables from Cleveland to Derby, or from Chester to Birkenhead, for these are in adjoining counties, and that is going quite far enough. Not only that, but there is nothing in the Bill to prevent fresh Regulations being drafted and laid before the House without the House having a very full opportunity of criticising them, under which the limitation as to adjoining counties might be wiped out. For all these reasons we urge this Amendment upon the Government, and we propose to divide upon it to show the Government we will do everything in our power to prevent this proposal coming into force and to prevent the special constables being an efficient body. The work they have to do should be done by the ordinary paid elements in the police force or the Army,
and it should not be handed over to a partisan body.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: The hon. and gallant Member who spoke last does not really understand the Bill and cannot have read it. It is merely continuing and making permanent what has already been proved in practice to be a very useful arm of the police force in this country. I should like very much if the hon. Gentleman who represents the Edge Hill Division of Liverpool (Mr. Hayes) had been sitting on this side of the House, and I am sure he would not have made the speech he did make on this Measure. Knowing, as he does, the real working of the police farce, I think he would have advocated as strongly as anyone here the desirability of being able to move the police forces of this country wherever they are wanted and whenever they are wanted.

Mr. POTTS: They can do that now.

Sir J. REMNANT: We have had a great deal of difficulty in past years, in connection with the employment of different police forces in different parts of the country where they were wanted, and even to-day we cannot do it properly. When I say "we," I mean the country generally. We wish we could make the police a more movable body, and make it easier to employ particular forces where they are wanted. The hon. Gentleman remarked that the Liverpool people did net mind being knocked about by their own police, but strongly objected to outsiders doing so. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think it would be a case of "defend us from our friends." The chances are they would object to being knocked about by anybody as law-breakers generally do. It is only in the case of bad riots and disturbances and where the police force happens to be unequal to the emergency that these powers would be exercised, and it is not at all a matter of taking sides. One of the features of our police force is that it does not take sides. Its object is to be impartial, to keep contending sides apart, and I think it does this admirably. The special constables have proved a useful help to the regular police force, and the hon. Member for Edge Hill knows they have. If we make them a permanent body the chances are they will be able to gain the necessary experience and be of greater help in the future than in the past. I hope I shall not be out of
order in referring to another matter in this connection which should obviate some of the points raised against the Bill. There are throughout the country many police pensioners—

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is now entering upon a matter which does not arise under this new Clause.

Sir J. REMNANT: I will not proceed further with the point, but I hope we shall have an opportunity later on of dealing with it. I hope the House will not be lead away by any extraneous matter which has been brought into this Debate, but will allow the Government to have their way and will reject this new Clause, which is obviously intended as a political move to embarrass the Government.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I have listened to every speech both in favour of and against this Amendment, and it appears to me the real value of the Amendment has been lost sight of. We start on common ground. In the first place we do not desire disorder whether we speak from the trade union side or the opposing side. We agree at once that disorder does neither party any good. It is the worst possible thing that can happen from the point of view of one who is leading a strike, and anyone who assumes for a moment that those in charge of disputes will seek any encouragement of disorder, is living in a fool's paradise. Secondly, let me say that I would prefer constables in any trade dispute to troops. I give absolutely no countenance to the suggestion about the use of troops. I know what have been the effects of using troops and the last thing that should be done in connection with a trade dispute, is to think of sending in troops. I also discountenance the suggestion as to Fascisti. I do not suppose that there is any danger of Bolshevism on the one side or Fascism on the other. While the people of this country have the opportunity of choosing their own representatives, they are more likely to adopt that course than either of those two extremes. Thirdly, there should be agreement that when temper and feeling and passion are aroused the right people to deal with the situation are people of tact. I was in the Liverpool riots to which the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes) referred, and I know they
were provoked mainly by tactless people. At Wembley the tact of the police in handling the situation, in knowing the crowd and knowing the psychology of the people saved real trouble as anyone who was there will admit. Is not that exactly the purpose of the Amendment? If serious disturbances arise, and there is a necessity to strengthen the police, the Home Secretary at this moment has the power to draft an Order for that purpose. Does not common sense say at once that the people who should be used on an occasion of that kind are the ordinary constables—the regular police. Special constables in the very nature of things can know nothing of the local circumstances if they are sent into a particular area.

Sir J. REMNANT: The specials would not be called in if there were a sufficient police force otherwise.

Mr. THOMAS: Do not let us argue against the Amendment under a misapprehension. I am trying to follow out the real purpose of the Amendment. We agree we want to avoid disorder. We do not want anybody in a crowd to throw a brick and start a riot, nor do we want special constables to do some silly act

which will provoke an outburst. Surely the best people to handle these situations are the local people themselves, and the real object of the Amendment is to ensure that this is done, and not to say that disorder must go on. No one says that, and it would be madness to say so. But local people, knowing the vicinity, knowing all the local circumstances, having personal knowledge of the people involved, would handle such a situation with far more tact and success than it could be handled by importation of strangers. Because we do not think it necessary that these powers should be given to the Home Secretary, and because we believe he has all the powers necessary, we hope he will accept the Amendment. In any case, I rose primarily to say, in order that there should be no misunderstanding so far as the Labour side is concerned, that the last people we desire to see drafted into any industrial dispute are the military, because we believe that they would do more harm than good.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 100; Noes, 227.

Division No. 135.]
AYES.
4.47 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hinds, John
Pringle, W. M. R.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, G. H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Ammon, Charles George
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Riley, Ben


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Hogge, James Myles
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Attlee, C. R.
Irving, Dan
Rose, Frank H.


Barnes, A.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Salter, Dr. A.


Batey, Joseph
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Scrymgeour, E.


Bonwick, A.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Briant, Frank
Lansbury, George
Simpson, J. Hope


Broad, F. A.
Lawson, John James
Snowden, Philip


Buchanan, G.
Leach, W.
Spoor, B. G.


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Lee, F.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Stephen, Campbell


Chapple, W. A.
Linfield, F. C.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Lunn, William
Sullivan, J.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
M'Entee, V. L.
Thornton, M.


Duffy, T. Gavan
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Duncan, C.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Ede, James Chuter
Maxton, James
Webb, Sidney


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Middleton, G.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Falconer, J.
Millar, J. D.
Wheatley, J.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Morel, E. D.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Mosley, Oswald
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Groves, T.
Muir, John W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grundy, T. W.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Wintringham, Margaret


Hamilton, Sir B. (Orkney & Shetland)
Nichol, Robert



Harris, Percy A.
O'Connor, Thomas P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hastings, Patrick
Phillipps, Vivian
Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and


Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Mr. Hayes.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Potts, John S.



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Furness, G. J.
Paget, T. G.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Garland, C. S.
Pease, William Edwin


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Gates, Percy
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Penny, Frederick George


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Goff, Sir R. Park
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Peto, Basil E.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Plelou, D. P.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Preston, Sir W. R.


Barnston, Major Harry
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Becker, Harry
Halstead, Major D.
Privett, F. J.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Harrison, F. C.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Harvey, Major S. E.
Remnant, Sir James


Berry, Sir George
Hawke, John Anthony
Rentoul, G. S.


Betterton, Henry B.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.


Blundell, F. N.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Brass, Captain W.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W.)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hopkins, John W. W.
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Briggs, Harold
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Houfton, John Plowright
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hudson, Capt. A.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Bruford, R.
Hughes, Collingwood
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Sandon, Lord


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave O.


Butcher, Sir John George
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Shepperson, E. W.


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.


Cadogan, Major Edward
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Skelton, A. N.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Stanley, Lord


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Steel, Major S. Strang


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Clarry, Reginald George
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Clayton, G. C.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lorden, John William
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Lorimer, H. D.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Titchfield, Marquess of


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lumley, L. R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cope, Major William
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Tubbs, S. W.


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Wallace, Captain E.


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Margesson, H. D. R.
Ward, Cot. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)
Wells, S. R.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Mercer, Colonel H.
Whitla, Sir William


Doyle, N. Grattan
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Winterton, Earl


Ednam, Viscount
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Wise, Frederick


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wolmer, Viscount


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Murchison, C. K.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Eyres Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Falcon, Captain Michael
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Nield, Sir Herbert



Foreman, Sir Henry
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel




Gibbs.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision for periods of trade disputes.)

No special constable, if called out for duty during an industrial dispute, shall be called upon to perform any work in connection with the industry in which the dispute is proceeding.—[Mr. Trevelyan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. TREVELYAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
A certain amount of difficulty exists with regard to this Bill, because of the vagueness of the right hon. Gentleman who brought in the Bill. He was very careful to say very little, but there was a question as to the use to which the constabulary would be put, asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), at the time of the Second Reading, as follows:
Will the trade unions be assured that the Force will not be used in trade disputes, as during the War?
To this, the Under-Secretary replied:
I have already said that no trade unionist is going to be forced to become a special constable. If he becomes a special constable, he becomes one knowing perfectly well the duties he will have to perform. If he says to himself, 'I do not feel, if I become a special constable, that I shall be able to carry out those duties,' it is his business not to become a special constable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1923; col. 990, Vol. 162.]
At the same time, there is nothing in that reply which does define the duties of the special constable. All we have heard from the bench opposite is a description of the duties of special constables in keeping the peace, maintaining the law, and defending property. As a matter of fact, we, on this side, do not think that this body of special constables is necessary even for that purpose, but there is another purpose to which they might be put, and that is the purpose of strike breaking. This Clause directly challenges that question, and if it were passed, these special constables would still be available for keeping the peace, should the Bill become law, and they would still be available for defending property, but they would not be available for breaking a strike or a lock-out, or being used for industrial purposes. It really is, therefore, a test Amendment. What are the duties of these special constables? If they
are to be used for the purpose of blacklegging, it is perfectly obvious, as we have been saying over and over again on this side, that no trade unionist will apply, that no one who disbelieves in blacklegging, either in any dispute that he sees possible ahead or on general principles, will join. That means that the great mass of trade unionists in this country will have nothing whatever to do with it, and, therefore, what we say is correct, that this new Force will be composed only of enthusiasts for the mine-owning and property-owning view of industrial disputes, people who, from their side, believe in class war.
5.0 P.M.
We, of course, say that the police are the right people to deal with difficulties of this kind, as they have done perfectly satisfactorily from the year 1831 to the year 1914, when the police, with the very rare assistance of the military, have been sufficient for any disturbance that there has been. When trade disputes have occurred, the police have never been used for breaking strikes or being called upon to do the strikers' work. Unless you adopt this Amendment you are going to create this new force for a different purpose from that for which the police are now used. I think the Government have not, perhaps, quite realised how inconsistent this is with the mild statements that they have been making hitherto. They go on saying that this is a general force, which anyone can join, but do they seriously pretend that a force will be likely to be joined by any number of working men which may be called out any day to do blacklegging? Do they seriously pretend that? Do not let them go on to say, "Oh, it is open to the working classes to join," if they are going to insist on defeating an Amendment of this kind. If this Clause be inserted, all law-abiding citizens may join this force. There is no reason why they should not. If this Clause be not passed, the majority of law-abiding citizens of this country, who include the working classes, would not be able to join this force. If this Clause be not inserted, the enormous majority of the law-abiding citizens of this country could not join it consistently with their consciences, consistently with their ideas of how society should be run.

Mr. CHARLES BUXTON: I beg to second the Motion.
I do so mainly on one ground. The Home Secretary, who has shown readiness to understand different points of view, does not seem to have sufficiently appreciated one very vital point, that is, the way this new force of special constabulary is to be regarded by the ordinary public, and particularly by the working-class public. What is it to be regarded as? It is not solely a question of what it is actually to consist of or of what it is actually going to do. It is a question of the impression it will make on the public. It will be generally agreed that, whatever else we want the force to be, we do not want it to be recognised as an instrument in class warfare. We do not want it to be thought of in that light. If this new Clause be not carried and if the special constabulary could be called out for duty during an industrial dispute and called upon to perform work in connection with the industry in which the dispute is proceeding, it is absolutely inevitable that this force will be looked upon as an instrument of class warfare. As such it will certainly be viewed by a very large section of the community in the sense that they will not join and will not support it. On the contrary, they will help to swell the general current of opinion critical if not hostile towards the force When we know, on the other hand, that there is a very large number of people in this country who would like such a force to be used as an instrument in class warfare; when we realise that there is a very great danger of a force from which men of working class or Labour sympathies shrink, that, force will become in fact an instrument in class warfare. We heard in the Debate on the Second Reading references to the Fascisti movement in Italy and so forth. It is especially in relation to the subject-matter of this new Clause that that question becomes important. No doubt there may be exaggerations in regard to this, but there is, in certain countries, in various forms and guises, a movement for creating a forcible weapon to be used against the working classes, and to be used against democracy and democratic ideas and methods.
I do not suggest for a moment that in this country such a movement is likely to take the extreme forms which it tends to
take in Latin countries, or in such countries as Hungary, yet I do say that we see the beginning of such a movement even in countries and peoples much more akin to our own. Among the Teutonic people, who, whatever we may think of their conduct in certain events, are in character more like ourselves than the Latin peoples—among these people, for instance, in Bavaria, you have a movement of this kind very highly developed, and very competently and thoroughly organised. Movements of this kind may spread from one country to another more rapidly than some people believe. There is a distinct possibility that, if we have an instrument, such as the proposed Special Constabulary, which could be used in industrial disputes—and undoubtedly there would be an outcry for its use if industrial disputes arose and if it were in existence—if we have such a force, there is a distinct danger that it might become a part of the movement I have described, which in Italy takes the form of Fascisti, definitely and consciously directed towards suppressing the activities, industrial and political, of the working classes. But whether it did so or not, it would be regarded by the public opinion of this country as being a one-sided force, and as such it would undoubtedly be weakened in its power and usefulness, even if it did not become a positive danger to the community.

Major ATTLEE: I wish to support the Motion. We cannot have enough Clauses of this sort in the Bill, and if this Clause be not inserted, the Bill is likely to cause unrest in the minds of a great number of people. This Bill as it stands is not a Bill for establishing order, but a Bill for disestablishing order. When the Bill came up for Second Reading, we had a very peaceful speech from the Home Secretary. He represented to us that this was a very mild and quiet Bill, and so on, but he was rather given away by hon. Members sitting on the benches opposite. One particular hon. Member, who is distinguished in the service of his country in the matter of dealing with torpedoes, really torpedoed his leader. Just when the Home Secretary had explained that this Bill was made up of nothing but the milk of human kindness, there was a swelling noise behind him of class warfare, and an hon. and gallant Member really expressed the feeling alluded to by my hon. Friends on this side of the House,
of that sort of international belief in class warfare from the side of the privileged classes, which is such a danger on the Continent of Europe. I think everybody in this House who believes in orderly progress ought to see that, when a Bill of this kind is brought forward, it does not offend a large section of this country.
I assume that hon. Members opposite do not imagine that the whole mass of the workers of this country—take those who voted for the Labour party at the last Election—are all Red Bolshevists. I do not think that such a view is held seriously in this House, however useful it may be to set forth in platform speeches in remote villages. We are a party who wish to make changes in a constitutional and orderly manner. What we want to see is that the balance is held fairly between the two parties. In a trade dispute you have a contest between a certain number of human beings and a certain abstraction which is probably called a company. You cannot get at the company. Force is not used against the company. It is not even used against the directors who, in many cases, may not be near the spot where the dispute is actually taking place. If in every industrial dispute which takes place there is going to be a danger of mobilising an anti-trade union force from among the privileged classes or among those outcasts who are so down and out that they are prepared to blackleg their fellows, then I say that is a very great danger. Although I suppose some 30 or 40 years ago the majority of hon. Members sitting in this House would have accepted the proposition that in all industrial disputes the men were necessarily in the wrong, to-day we recognise that there are cases where the masters may be wrong.
If you use a force of this kind in industrial disputes, it could, by its very nature, be used only on one side. You create this force that can be used only against the men. What are you going to put on the other side to use force against the masters? Cannot you have some pressure to use against them? Can we not have a force to look after the children of people who may be locked out in the course of a trade dispute? This is a loading of the dice against the workers all the time. It is, I think, generally
admitted that if you are to have anything like order you must have some impartial force to keep order. In any of your games you do not want the referee and the umpire to be prejudiced. In this case, by the mere fact of not having in the Bill this protection for trade unionists, this force is bound to be a prejudiced force drawn from only one side. At a time like this, when economic issues tend to be drawn between class and class, when all the great issues dividing the people are mostly economic issues, it is a danger to set up a force drawn from only one class. If you insert this new Clause, you can have a special force of constabulary which may be useful in certain eventualities; which may give a little needful exercise to some people in the way of having a little walk out now and again, but if this new Clause be cut out, a great number of the trade unionists in this country, some six or seven million men, will be cut out from that force. Your special constabulary will then be a class force and its existence will inevitably raise, among the less disciplined minds in this country on the workers' side, a desire to have a counter force.
I do not deny that there may be a few firebrands in this country who are on our side, but there are a great many firebrands on the opposite side, and I can see this force becoming a great danger if it got into the hands of a certain person who may not be sitting on the benches opposite, but who may be hovering halfway between the benches opposite and the benches below the Gangway on this side, and who is making speeches and writing articles in the Sunday papers trying to point the moral and adorn the tale of a lining up on one side of capitalists and on the other side of the workers. There may be nothing in that. It may be only the desire of someone who has lost a job to get a new job again as the saviour of society. We remember what happened in Ireland when a certain person was in charge of affairs. But when there are dangerous people like that, do not put a weapon of this kind into their hands; do not forge a weapon against the workers, lest you make them forge a weapon on the other side. We on this side of the House do not wish to march to social reconstruction by first of all flattening out our whole civilisation. We do not believe that the best way to reconstruct the home is to knock it all
down, if the home be worth having Of course it might well be, in non-parlour houses, to knock it down. We think, however, there is a sufficient amount of structure in the walls of our own country to preserve. We do not want to see the home wrecked in the process of endeavouring to reconstruct. Therefore, I support this Clause to make this constabulary force a real and a national force, and not a class force.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) is to be congratulated on the wording of this Clause. It is very much better than the one in my name, and I think it is a valuable Clause. I think that ray Noble Friend the Member for Battersea (Viscount Curzon) and others, if they want to make these special constables a broadly-based force, drawn from all classes of the community, will insist on the Home Secretary accepting this Clause, because otherwise it will be very difficult not only for any trade unionist to join this force, but for any person, who by temperament or by knowledge, usually has his sympathies on the side of the workers in trade disputes, and there are a great many, not trade unionists, who take that point of view. Everyone admits that during the War the special constables were perfectly efficient, and did very good work, but is it known generally in the House that it was a well-understood thing in certain districts, and, indeed, it was laid down definitely, that special constables enrolled during the War were not to be used in trade disputes? Those are the actual words used, and I embodied them in my Clause In the case of Hull, I know, the special constables were distinctly informed—pledged, in fact—that they were not to be used in cases of trade dispute. I have that from the gentleman who commanded them during the War, and who is, in fact, my own Chairman. The consequence was that a great many trade unionists joined—I think the majority consisted of trade unionists—and did splendid work in Hull, where more bombs were dropped in air raids than anywhere else, except London. You are really going to make it difficult for any trade unionist to join this force. Is that the intention of the right hon. Gentleman? Does the right hon. Gentle-
man expect any organised workers to join this force, if they can be turned on to driving engines in a railway strike or trams in a tramway strike or lockout, or put to anything of that kind? Unless they can be assured that they will only be used for the purposes of preserving the peace, you cannot expect them to enroll, and you will have a force, not drawn almost exclusively from the middle and upper classes, but from those members of the middle and upper classes who, through ignorance, or want of sympathy and understanding, usually take the side of the employers against the workers in any trade dispute.
We have had bitter and prolonged trade disputes in the past, and in some cases there has been disorder. Others have passed very peacefully. We have had every sort of trade dispute during the last 50 or 60 years, very often prolonged, and leading to riots, much ill-feeling, and very often deaths. We have not had this special force of constables. Are there any cases where special constables were called out for trade diputes in the past? Were they in the strike in London or in the strike in Liverpool?

Sir J. REMNANT: A lot of specials were called out there.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It was not a permanent force, and specials can still be called out, even if this Bill be defeated altogether. We on these benches have maintained all along that the 1831 Act is sufficient, and we do not require this specially organised and—what I am afraid is going to be—specially selected force to be used in these trade disputes with, we think, very harmful results. These disputes were settled more or less satisfactorily, but they were settled. During the last Parliament a special effort was made by the last Government to organise all the blacklegs. A secret circular was sent round to the motor associations asking who were willing to help in the event of a strike. It was kept secret. I do not think it was legal, and it ought to have been challenged at the time. Unless this Clause be accepted, you are going to regularise all that, and, what is worse, make it permanent. It may be said that during the years 1919, 1920, and 1921, before the power of the so-called Triple Alliance was weakened, a case could be made out, and was frequently made out
by Mr. Winston Churchill and other timid people politically—I must not be misunderstood—who are always frightened, always seeing red rats, as someone put it the other day. They used to say it was absolutely necessary to organise against this great body, the Triple Alliance, which could paralyse all the means of communication, and so on. Some excuse could be put forward—although insufficient, in my opinion—to organise these blacklegs amongst the motor-owning class and so on, but here you are going to put this permanently on the Statute Book. That shows, I think, a very poor faith in our fellow-citizens, who, after all, have been through a distressing and trying time during the past 10 years, and have not come out of it badly. I think the general public in this country has behaved, in very difficult circumstances, extremely well. We have had great strikes with a minimum of disorder, and with millions of men trained to arms, anyone might have prophesied extreme disorder and danger during those alarming trade disputes. In spite of this, the attempt is going to be made to make this force permanent, and therefore it is very necessary that some such Clause as this should be inserted.
May I remind the Home Secretary of the very questionable tactics of the daily Press during our trade disputes, in which deliberate attempts are made by certain sections of the Press to inflame the public against the employés involved? Lying statements have been broadcasted in these newspapers, and every attempt made to inflame public opinion, not amongst the mass of the people, but amongst the middle-class and the classes not involved in the dispute. On the other side, you have special interviews and special photographs of people who, for once in their lives, do a little hard work and drive motor lorries and railway locomotives. Sir Richard Cooper, when a Member of this House, had his photograph in half the papers of this country, and he was held up as a tremendous hero because he had driven a locomotive during the railway strike. Could anything be more likely to inflame and create bitterness? There you had men who were struggling for what they considered a necessary standard of life. The railway strike, it was admitted
afterwards, was in many respects fully justified.

Sir F. BANBURY: No, certainly not.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I did not expect the right hon. baronet to have the least sympathy with any work-people in a dispute, but he is honest, and I thank him for his interruption. But will the Noble Lord the Member for Battersea say the same? Will he say there was anything wrong in the attitude of the railway strikers on that occasion to insist on some decent standard of life? He has got plenty of trade unionists in his own Division, and I would ask him—

Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to address the Chair.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I apologise, Sir. I say that the self-advertisement of people who acted as blacklegs on that occasion was calculated to arouse class feeling. This force may be enrolled, as the right hon. Gentleman probably means it should be, for the legitimate purpose of preventing violence and riot, but if it is then going to be turned on to organised blacklegging, there will be a departure from the regular orderly behaviour we have had during these trade disputes. I hope, if the Home Secretary does not feel himself able to accept this Clause, the House will insist upon it. Statements are constantly made on these benches that hon. Gentlemen on the other side are out of sympathy with the workers. Let us hear from them whether they are in sympathy with the special constables being used for this purpose. There is an hon. Member for Ulster, who has more knowledge of special constables than I have. Is he in favour of these being turned on in trade disputes to break strikes? I invite the hon and gallant Gentleman for Finsbury (Lieut.-Colonel Archer-Shee) to support us. Let us hear something from the other side to show that the gibe frequently made against them is unfounded.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: The speeches to which we have listened on this Amendment seem to me to show an extraordinary misapprehension of the intentions of this Bill and particularly as to the refusal of the Government to accept the Amendment. In the case, for
example, of a dispute between myself and my men, do hon. Members of the Labour party really believe that if I applied in such a dispute for the use of special constables to break the strike among my men, that my request would be acceded to. [HON MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The Home Secretary, to whatever Government he belonged, would see me further first. The only intention of the Bill obviously is that under circumstances, which might arise, such that a considerable portion of the inhabitants of this country would be unable to avoid starvation in case of a continuance of the dispute—that under such circumstances alone would the special constables be used in doing any work in a trade dispute.
We had an example of the sort of thing I mean about three or more years ago, and it is a case of the kind in which undoubtedly a large portion of the inhabitants of this country were in actual danger of serious privation and of ultimate starvation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] It was a serious position and it is under these conditions, prevailing in a railway centre like my own, that in the absence of special constables, such as are provided for under this Bill, we should have been in very serious danger of civil war. There was the railway strike proceeding in this country; and at times like this some of our neighbours can get out of it. You do not see the rich men suffering any privations. They can get away. But the people who first suffer privation under these conditions are the poorest of the poor, and, subsequently, the better-paid workers. In the circumstances present during the railway strike there was undoubtedly very great danger that the poorest in my own district were about to suffer severe privation and ultimate starvation owing to the holdup of the transport. Under such conditions it is almost impossible in the absence of a special force of the nature suggested, and such as is provided for in the Bill to prevent the rise of an unauthorised force in opposition to the trade unions. I know the thing from experience. I was just on the point, in my own district, of helping to get together such a force to help those anxious to prevent their poorer neighbours suffering from privation and,
it may be, starvation, and to help in forming an organisation to see to getting the food trains through, so that our neighbours should not suffer. If we had done that, a position of the utmost seriousness might have arisen, for we should have been acting quite illegally. The presence of a strong constabulary composed of men properly sworn in and acting principally under the instructions of the majority of the country would undoubtedly prevent the rise of an illegal and unconstitutional force such as that I have indicated. Therefore, perhaps, I am justified in suggesting that hon. Members opposite have quite a misapprehension of the intention of this Bill. There is obviously no such intention as they think. On the face of it, no one would dream of using the special constabulary in any dispute between an employer and the men he employs. But it might save serious tumults if the Government were to use that constabulary in the case of a dispute such as that to which I have referred, only where it is a case of a dispute between the trade unions and the poor of the country.

Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: I was really hoping that the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Measure would have told the House what the attitude of the Government was in respect to this Amendment.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will do so later.

Mr. WALSH: The fact is that during a previous discussion we were told by every hon. Member who rose that this particular form of constabulary was to be a completely impartial force, and simply for the purpose of helping the regular constabulary in the preservation of order. The hon. Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant) particularly emphasised that point in answering the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for the Edge Hill Division (Mr. Hayes). It was made quite clear that they were to be an impartial body; that we were not creating strike breakers, that they were to be purely impartial. If the hon. Member for Holborn will look at his speech, he will, I think, see that he used that exact expression.

Sir J. REMNANT: indicated dissent.

Mr. WALSH: I am quite sure that some qualms felt on these benches were
at least allayed by that statement. After all, what is the special constabulary? It may be said quite clearly and accurately that they are an auxiliary force to the regular constabulary. Circumstances may arise, often have arisen, when it is necessary to supplement the existing forces. But the duties of the special force do not exceed and cannot transcend the duties of the primary force. They are supplementary. The duties of the second, that is the auxiliary force, are not to be greater than those of the force originally established and to which they are to be assistant. I think my right hon. Friend himself will admit that that is a fairly accurate definition. All that is asked for here—I am quite sure the House will recognise its fairness—is that where an industrial dispute is in existence—not a dispute in which the whole country is engaged, not a dispute in which I recognise the whole community's existence might be gravely imperilled, but an industrial dispute—that was the actual expression used—the added auxiliary constabulary shall not be used as strike breakers, shall not be called upon to perform the work which is ordinarily performed by the parties in dispute. I myself should have thought that hon. Members who desire, and I believe have very earnestly expressed that desire, that this force shall not be used as a strikebreaking force, would have seen that it is not in the interest of anyone that the community shall not have confidence in the force. The fundamental condition of confidence in a police force is that it will not outstep its ordinary duties and become participant in the merits of the dispute. Surely all that is asked here is the special constables, when established, shall not be called upon—if you like to put it that way—to help to work the mines.
I have been engaged in trade unionism now for 50 years. I think I have witnessed some of the most terrible industrial struggles that the last century and this has known. I have witnessed them on a mass scale in which vast numbers of people have been engaged. In the 50 years or so with which I have been connected with trade unionism, there has been no necessity for special constables. That auxiliaries have had to be called in, that the forces in the various districts have had to be increased, is undoubted. The whole mining industry—and those
who know recognise that at least one side has had a fair share of prosperity—has managed to do without special constabulary right up till now, and until a couple of years ago, when the miners in the industry were locked out, and some million people were involved. The controversy was very acute, but there were no special constables called in. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] No, not a single one. The right hon. Gentleman himself will, in whatever else we may differ, agree that there never on such a gigantic scale was such a huge controversy conducted under such remarkably peaceful conditions..
That would seem to show that, first of all, there does not exist any necessity for special constables even to be brought into existence to any great degree than the need existing already, and that certainly in respect of their duties there ought to be no addition to these except as they form part and parcel of the regular force. As I said, confidence, after all, is the very essence of the efficiency of the police force. The moment you say that these people are to be called upon, or may be called upon, to become active participants in the merits of a dispute, you destroy the very conditions that make for confidence. Nothing can be worse for the status of the police force itself than to leave it open to any real doubt that they may be called upon to engage in an industrial dispute and to break the power of resistance of the men. As has already been very well said, no force has ever been used against the side of the employers. Sydney Smith said many years ago that corporations had neither souls to be saved or bodies to be kicked. Employers' corporations are intangible combinations that nobody can get hold of, while, on the other hand, the working people, massed in their thousands, in great communities, can very easily have force erected against them. In the case of this special force of constabulary, if it is necessary at all to have one, one desires its members to be efficient. Nothing could be worse than to destroy at the very outset confidence in such a force on which efficiency is based by a suggestion of partiality. I do really urge the right hon. Gentleman, who knows industrial history as well as most people in this House, at least to assure the House that this force, when called upon, is not to be an active
participant into the merits or demerits of a trade dispute.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am sorry if I have inconvenienced the hon. Gentleman by not having got up earlier, but there were various hon. Members to speak, and I was anxious to hear what they had to say. On the whole, I am not sorry I did not rise earlier, because there is an extraordinary amount of misapprehension in the minds of hon. Members on the question before us. Suspicions have been aroused—hon. Members on the opposite benches have conjured them up—which never existed in people's minds before, as to what the force is to be used for. The hon. Member opposite who seconded the Amendment talked about the new force. It is not a new force. It is not going to have powers different from what the old force had. It is merely to carry on the same powers and duties as the old force. The only difference is that in this case the members are enrolled, and in the other case, in that sense there was no enrolment. Under the Act of 1831 they cannot be called upon to perform any duties except the preservation of public peace, the protection of the inhabitants, and the security of property. They cannot be called upon to take the place of strikers, because the Act of 1831 already says that they can only be called upon for these particular duties, which do not include taking the place of strikers in a dispute. In an earlier Amendment we dealt with the point about them taking part in a trade dispute which might lead to disorder, and in that case special constables might have to be used. The special constables when they join know that they cannot be called upon in this way, and if they do not know they can very easily be told. To say that unless this proposal is passed in this House, that this force becomes a one-sided force—

Mr. JOWETT: The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) admitted that these special constables could be used in trade disputes.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I say that they cannot.

Mr. JOWETT: I say you are wrong.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am referring to the statement that, without this Amend-
ment, this Bill becomes a one-sided force, always to be used against the working men, but it can only be used against them when working men are out of order, and in order to keep order. The present force, or rather those who were enrolled under the 1914 Act consisted, I am told, as far as the metropolitan area was concerned, of 50 per cent. of the very class of men against whom it is said these special constables are going to be used. There has actually been strikers on strike who joined up as special constables, and so there will be again in the future. There is nothing to prevent men, whether they belong to a trade union or not, who are working men, enrolling themselves, and nothing can compel them to take the place of strikers if they are in this force. The Act of 1831 is quite sufficient to prevent the danger which hon. Members quite reasonably foresee, and therefore I hope this Amendment will not be pressed, because it is unnecessary and the position is fully safeguarded.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I cannot understand why on earth the Home Secretary does not accept this Amendment, because his whole speech is directly in favour of it. Really, if all that the right hon. Gentleman has said is contained in the Act of 1831, and if he is being perfectly frank with the House, why should not this Amendment be accepted in order to set all our minds at rest. It seems to me that the only loophole we have for suspecting the right hon. Gentleman is contained in the words "the preservation of order." Does the right hon. Gentleman by any chance draw a fine distinction between a trade dispute that affects the community and one from which the community cannot escape? Is he reserving the power to allow special constabulary to interfere by working a power station in order to keep the production of light and heat going? Does the right hon. Gentleman regard that as something which a special constabulary might deal with, although in an ordinary trade dispute they would not be wanted? Is that a case in which the right hon. Gentleman might so arrange the Regulation that these special constabulary might be of service? Unless there is something like that at the back of his mind, I cannot understand why he cannot accept the Amendment. If this is at the back of his mind, then the House ought to know and have it frankly placed before them. In
1919 there was a threatened strike of electric light workers, and I think it actually took place. If I remember rightly, the Navy stokers were brought in at the Lots Road station to work the power station. That was a trade dispute. Would that be regarded as one in which special constables could not take part as blacklegs, or is it an exception which would justify them taking part?
Take the case put forward by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson). Would a railway strike be an occasion when the preservation of order demanded that the special constables should run the motor transport or the railway transport? Would such cases also be considered an exception? If the right hon. Gentleman rules out these cases, if these are cases in which the new special constabulary would not be used, we should like to know if they are to be considered trade disputes, and we should like to have the word of the Home Secretary that in such cases special constables will not be introduced. It seems to me that the idea at the back of the mind of the Government is that this new force of special constabulary should be used in cases in the interests of the community when the community finis it is inconvenient. If that is not so, we certainly have done them a grave injustice. If it is so, then think it ought to be stated frankly in the House. From the speech which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman, I imagine that there is no sort of question of this new constabulary being trained to-day in special industrial work, or of acting in any way differently from the existing police force, and that they are merely intended to supplement the existing police force, and nothing more. If that be so, let us have the matter plainly stated by inserting this Amendment. If this is not the case, let us be told outright what it is that the Government propose.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken s[...]ems to be unable to believe that all we want is that these special constables should do exactly the work which has been done by them in the past, governed by the same restrictions and Regulations, or, rather, by new Regulations which we shall have to lay on the Table of the House. The hon. and gallant Member
thinks because I do not put a lot of unnecessary words in the Bill that there must be some sinister motive at the back of our minds. I have been asked whether it would be considered preserving public order, protecting the inhabitants, or dealing with the security of property, to call upon special constables to go and work at some power station where the men were on strike. I say distinctly that they cannot be called upon to do that work. On this point I want to be quite frank. In the case referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, volunteers were called for, not merely from among special constables, but generally, and volunteers enrolled themselves to do that work at the power station, and among them there were some special constables. I am not prepared to say that if a special constable volunteers for that work we can prevent him doing it. We say that if he does that, while he is doing it he cannot perform the functions of a special constable, and that is my position. I hope I have now made this point quite clear.

Mr. J. JONES: With regard to what has been said I wish to point out that 1831 is rather a sinister period, because the special constables were then organised to prevent people getting their freedom. Then the people were fighting for the first time for the right of the franchise, and special constables were brought in to beat their fellow subjects into subjection, and now this proposal is being brought forward to be used against the industrial revolution. I remember that in 1911 we had Bluebottles on the top of the meat vans, and they were special constables, and very special constables. They were not used to break the strike, but to break the people's heads, and it seems to me that that is what these new powers are being asked for. We know very well that when trouble does arise hon. Members opposite will be absent, and it will be the mugs who will have to face the music. We are told by the Home Secretary that these men will not be called upon to blackleg, but they will be called upon to do more because they will have to protect the blacklegs. There is nothing to prevent a special constable from going into a generating station, a gas works or water works and blacklegging the men in the dispute. Special constables will surround that station, with
revolvers if necessary, to protect those at work.
6.0 P.M.
On this question, why do you not tell the truth? You tell us that we are preaching a class war, but you are producing such a war every day by forcing our wages down, driving our women into starvation conditions, and then you say you are doing it in the interests of law and order. The other day the Home Secretary himself told us that there were 360,000 ex-service men out of work. If you want more policemen, give those men a job. If you are short of police, put these men into uniform and pay them a decent wage for doing police work. Instead of that, you say you want blackleg policemen; you want every creeping, crawling thing in a factory to become a special constable—because they are the only men you will get. The fellow who wants a better job, who wants a few shillings a week more on his wages to put his fellow-workmen away, will join your special constabulary; no decent workman will do so. And yet you boast about your love for the ex-service man. Here are the men who have gone through the mill. Here are the men who have been disciplined and organised through the Army and Navy. If you want more policemen, if you think there is danger of disorder, give these men a chance and put them into decent work under decent conditions, and we will support you. What you really want, however, is protectors for blacklegs. If they are not blacklegs themselves, they will be the supporters of those who are. We want order if we can get it at a reasonable price, but we ask that this Amendment shall be carried, to give us a guarantee that they shall neither be used as potential blacklegs nor for the purpose of protecting blacklegs who may take part in breaking up an industrial dispute. I come from the East End of London, and from Ireland, too—

Captain Viscount CURZON: Hear, hear!

Mr. JONES: —and I have never been sent to prison for doing anything I am ashamed of. I have not been convicted 14 times for trying to kill other people. I have no licence to kill, but I will undertake to say that, if I had had to undergo
the ordeal of the Noble Lord opposite, I should have been in gaol now. I do not happen to have been so successful in choosing my parents, and therefore I have to submit to the responsibility of being only a common person. We ask that this Bill shall not be passed. There is plenty of opportunity for the nation to protect itself against disorder. There are plenty of disciplined men ready to take service in that force. If you want more policemen, make more, and make them proper policemen—men who understand their duty and are prepared to do it. I object to these half-time blacklegs. We in the East End of London know them. We will trust ourselves in the hands of the ordinary police, because we know them; but we are not prepared to trust these people, who are always looking for something to turn up—militarist Micawbers. If it gets to be known among the workers outside that you are going to create such a force, to be called upon at any time to do anything that the authorities in power may demand, the result will be to create the very feeling that you want now to try to prevent—the feeling that you are organising a special force which is only recruited from certain sources, like the foremen in factories and people who are looking for better jobs; and the ordinary workman will get more embittered than ever. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment will be carried, and so justify the position we are taking up.

Dr. CHAPPLE: I think there is a good deal to be said upon the position taken up by the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House. If the special constables are a class force, they are an extreme danger, for feeling will run high whenever their services are required, and, if feeling runs high in circumstances of that kind, there will be a great danger of fuel being added to the fire. When we talk about trade disputes we do not all mean the same thing. To me, there is nothing illegal about a trade dispute. There is nothing violent about it. It is not only perfectly legal, but perfectly peaceful to have a difference of opinion between employers and employés. It does not necessarily lead to violence or riot, and it is not a matter in which special or any other kind of constables will be required. If employers and employés cannot agree about conditions of labour, wages and hours, there is a dispute, but
it calls for no interference on the part of the ordinary or the special police or of the military. I am not quite sure that all those who have addressed the House this afternoon have had that clear distinction in their minds. There is a clear line of demarcation between an industrial dispute on the one hand and an industrial riot on the other. A riot implies force, but a dispute or a strike does not imply force, and is not illegal.
What is a strike? It is nothing more nor less than a number of men saying, "We will not work under these conditions," and, in saying that, every man or group of men is exercising a perfect right. Why is it necessary to utilise police or special police in that case? If that is so, it seems to me that there is no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not accept this Amendment. It simply says that, in the case of a dispute, special constables are not to be called in. If, on the other hand, a dispute or a strike leads to riot, that is a different thing, and then force is required, because riot implies force. Riot is a condition in which men attack each other by violence, but a dispute or a strike is not necessarily a condition in which the aid, either of the police or of the military, is required. If a riot should arise out of a strike we have the police, and I believe that the police, and the police only, are competent to deal with it. I do not think that special constables are of very much assistance, and I think that their employment is bad policy.

Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the whole of this speech is not really a repetition of the preceding part of the Debate?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): I think the hon. Member is going a little too deeply into the distinction between a, trade dispute and a riot.

Dr. CHAPPLE: On that point of Order. I am certainly most anxious to keep within the limits of order, and especially to obey your ruling, but may I understand what it is? Must I not repeat what other Members have said before me?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think it is necessary to repeat too often what other hon. Members have said.

Mr. PRINGLE: May I point out to you that the range of the discussion has been
very wide? The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) discussed the whole principle of the Bill without question. Is there to be one law for him and another for my hon. Friend?

Mr. JONES: Yes, I have got a law to myself.

Dr. CHAPPLE: The danger, to my mind, of special police is that they might fail entirely to fulfil the object which the right hon. Gentleman hopes they will fulfil. I think training is necessary for the police if they are to prevent riot and disturbance, and that is their first function. I have travelled a good deal, and have never felt prouder than when I compared our police with those of other countries. Their impartiality, discipline and self-control are things of which we should feel proud, and one cannot travel in foreign countries without being able to draw that distinction to the advantage of our own men. The special constables are not and cannot be so trained, nor can they have the sense of responsibility which the regular police have. I think that this is an essential Amendment. It goes no further than to say that, in disputes which have not arrived at the stage of riot, the police or special police shall not be used.

Mr. LANSBURY: I should like, first, to say a word in reply to the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson). He, apparently, is not now in the House, but he asked what was to happen if we did not have these special constables to do the work of strikers? We disagree with the statement that, unless we have an official body of this kind, persons like the hon. Member would be obliged to organise in their own districts in order to prevent people from being starved. Speaking for myself, I think that, in circumstances where the capitalists of the country have failed to provide a great national service and to organise it peacefully, it is the duty of the State, not to take sides against the workmen, but to organise these services quite apart from the capitalists who have failed to organise them. There is no need for the setting on foot of voluntary organisations. During the period when it appeared likely that there would be a great general strike in the country, all the people who were taking part in local government, especially in London, were asked to undertake the
organisation of essential services, and I believe that all the local authorities, whether Labour or Tory, certainly in the metropolitan area, came together and formulated a scheme whereby these essential services would be carried on. All this argument, therefore, that the hon. Member and his Friends would be obliged, in order to save people from starvation, to set on foot a kind of Fascisti, falls to the ground.
I should also like to say that I do not think the Home Secretary answered the argument from this side. No one disputes the goodwill of anyone on the other side, but what we do dispute is the statement that special constables cannot be used in this way. During the year 1919—I hope the Home Secretary will take note of this date—during June of that year a special letter was sent to the special constables in London requesting them to take service in the electric light works, either as skilled or as unskilled workers. A friend of mine who served during the War as a special constable, and was not demobilised, was one of those who were called upon to do that work. It is, therefore, nonsense to say that special constables are not called upon to do this.

Major Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: They volunteered.

Mr. LANSBURY: This man was not told to volunteer. He was called upon to go and do the work. When you have a body of men organised as the special constables are organised, even calling upon volunteers is to all intents and purposes an order to them to go and do the job. But in this case it was definitely a request that the man should take the place of the people who were expected to go on strike at the electric light stations. I have in my possession the letter to my friend who was called upon to do it. When the Home Secretary talks of it as such a very innocent kind of force, may I recall to the House that 500 similar gentlemen took part of the Battle of Peterloo at Manchester. In those days they were called the "black-coated mob." They were looked upon as enemies of the workers even as long ago as the fight for political reform. Not merely are these men used in that way, but the Government, through the different Departments, are always trying
to organise a force of blacklegs when there is likely to be a big trade dispute. If the Under-Secretary for War was here and we were challenging him on this subject he would tell us the Army are not for blacklegging. Yet the War Office during a trade dispute sent out a circular to the regiments all round London calling for men to take part in the various trades and occupations they had followed in their civil life before joining the Army. That circular was published in the Press and there is no denying it. It is on all fours with what will happen with this special constabulary in regard to future labour disputes. May I call attention to another fact in regard to these gentlemen. I have had sent to me this circular headed "Special Police Reserve":
Dear Sir,—A miniature rifle club has been formed and two ranges have been acquired, namely, the Stock Exchange range, Borers Passage, and Sir Charles Wakefield's range at Blackfriars on the Embankment. The hours open to members are 4.30 to 9 on Monday at the Stock Exchange and 5.30 to 7.30 at the Blackfriars Lane. Match rifles are provided at both ranges. At the Stock Exchange range there is, in addition, a revolver range, and revolvers are supplied. Rifle and ammunition is supplied at both ranges at 4d. for ten rounds, and revolver ammunition is 3d. for six rounds. There is a subscription of 2s. 6d. To make a success of the club it will be necessary to have a large number of subscribers at such a low fee. The committee very much hope you will support the club, in which case kindly forward me your subscription in the enclosed envelope, when particulars will be sent you; the range at Blackfriars will be open on Thursday, 3rd May, and at Borers Passage on Monday, 14th. The next swearing of recruits will take place at the Guildhall on Friday, 4th May, at 1.30 p.m. Please make an endeavour to obtain a recruit.
[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite express the spirit of Fascisti thoroughly and well, and they prove that the statements made by the Home Secretary are of absolutely no effect whatever. Whom are you going to use the revolvers and rifles against? Against the workmen and no one else. You are not at war, are you? [HON. MEMBERS: "We were!"] You were, but even so, you never got the enemy here to fire on. Hon. Members opposite may say what they please, but they are being formed up for the purpose of shooting strikers. Will you allow us in Poplar to form a similar kind of organisation for working-men? The right
hon. Gentleman's predecessor locked workmen up because they had in their possession old worn-out bits of guns. He put them on trial for having arms in their possession. These are the gentlemen of England—the stock jobbers of England—whom you are going to train in order that they may form the nucleus of these Fascisti. That is your special constabulary.

Lieut.-Colonel HILDER: Is the hon. Member aware that the Stock Exchange Club started before the War, I believe, at the request of Lord Roberts?

Mr. LANSBURY: Before the War the feeling was as bitter against the workmen as it is now. I used to sit on the benches opposite and hear Mr. Winston Churchill talking exactly in the same fashion as some hon. Members have talked to-day, especially like the hon. Member for Mossley.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Is it relevant to this discussion to bring in rifle ranges and revolver clubs all over the country which it is open to anyone to form, which have nothing whatever to do with special constables and which were in existence long before the Special Constables Bill was thought of or brought in?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is more like a speech than a point of Order. I think the hon. Member was connecting it with his argument.

Mr. LANSBURY: I was trying to connect it and I really mean it. I think this is all part of the fear which has been germinating in the minds of the capitalists and others, and I think you are doing a very great disservice to everybody in persisting in it. I think rifle ranges and learning how to use a pistol and so on for middle-aged and old men to start on is a very bad business indeed, especially for one section of the community to do it. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to stand up and say he will give me permission in the East End of London to form such a club. I know I should not be allowed to do it, and the right hon. Gentleman cannot deny that a number of working people have been put on trial because they possessed pieces of rifles.

Sir G. HAMILTON: Without a licence.

Mr. LANSBURY: Without a licence What licence are these people going to
have to do it? To tell us at this time of day that special constables are not used, and are not going to be used, as blacklegs is all nonsense. They have been and they will be, and the purport of the Bill is to enable them to be so used. One person can declare an emergency. It is our old friend the competent military authority over again. And when that emergency arises, if the Government choose to say it is necessary for the feeding of the people or for the transport of goods that these men shall be used, they will be used and, therefore, trade unionists cannot possibly join this body. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that 50 per cent. of the constabulary during the War were trade unionists. I myself volunteered to do any duty which a special constable could do during the air raids and the difficult times we went through, and any of us would have done it. I wrote to his predecessor saying I did not want to take the oath, but I was perfectly willing to do the job of helping people, if it was possible for a person like me to do it. We were living under rather difficult circumstances, but that is an entirely different thing from organising this force. There is no need for their services, and I think if the right hon. Gentleman really understood all that has happened, both previous to 1914 and since the conclusion of the War, in regard to these specials, and what will happen if any big dispute comes along, he would at once meet us and accept this new Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: I think it is unfortunate that an endeavour should be made from the benches opposite to convince people that the special constabulary is a class force. It has been my great privilege recently, on behalf of the Lord Lieutenant of the county in which I am interested, to present medals to a large number of special constabulary and, as far as I could see, the vast majority of those present were working men who had done magnificent service all through the War and are all perfectly prepared to go on assisting in time of stress at a General Election or in preserving peace if there is trouble, but who are all convinced that there is no question whatever of their being asked to carry out duties such as have been suggested. With regard to the Society of Miniature Rifle Clubs, it was formed in this country by Lord Roberts.

Mr. LANSBURY: No, this was a special reserve for the City of London.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: This was, I understand, a miniature rifle club.

Mr. LANSBURY: No.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: You described it so.

Mr. LANSBURY: I did not describe it as anything of the kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "You did!"] I will read the title.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: I quite accept what the hon. Member said. He says he did not use the words "miniature rifle club," but that is what it is in fact.

Mr. LANSBURY: No, it is not.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: I think you will find I am right. It is unfortunate that this kind of class speech should be made with reference to the Society of Miniature Rifle Clubs, 95 per cent. of whose members are working men. As the Home Secretary has given us an explicit and definite statement as to the object of the Bill, it really seems to be a waste of public time to go on arguing that unnecessary words should be inserted.

Mr. CLYNES: I do not rise to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the argument whether or not this constabulary force is to be used as a class force. I do not conceive that subject to be covered to a large extent by the terms of the Amendment. The terms of the Amendment raise a readily understood and very important point. The Home Secretary appears to conclude that he has disposed of that point by giving the House an assurance that these special constables shall not be used as we fear and say in the terms of the new Clause they will be used. The new Clause expressly asks the law to declare that, in the course of their duties, the special constables shall not be required to do the work of the men taking part in a dispute. The Home Secretary says, "They never will be so used. I give an assurance that they will not be so used." Even Home Secretaries in these days appear and disappear with a good deal of rapidity.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Under the Act of 1831, they could not be called upon to do so.

Mr. CLYNES: There is nothing in the Act of 1831 to declare that special constables shall not be used in relation to a dispute. That Act declares that they shall be used for the maintenance of peace and order and for the protection of property. Our fear is that, in the pursuance of their duties in respect of these things laid down in the Act of 1831, those who are in supervision over the men may require them to take sides in a dispute. It may be that they will be required to take steps for the purpose of protecting property and for the purpose of maintaining peace and order. That is a matter of the point of view of those who will have the men under their control. What we ask the Home Secretary to say is, that in the new law which he is making it shall be expressly declared that these men shall not be required to take sides in a dispute to the extent of being compelled to take the places of men who for the moment are on strike. We are happy in the knowledge that, in the main, industrial disputes in this country have been conducted with a great deal of good sense and good temper on all sides, and usually that the law has been observed.
The Home Secretary spoke of suspicion, and he said that in our minds that suspicion was wholly unnecessary. After listening to his two short speeches I feel a suspicion which I did not entertain before he spoke. I suspect that in the absence from the law of the words which we are now suggesting it will be within the power of those who are supervising or generally ordering the special constables to do their duty to tell them to do just what they, the supervisors, please. If we complain of that, to what can anybody turn? They can turn to the terms of the statute, but they will not find in those terms the benevolent assurance which the Home Secretary has given us this evening. We have received an assurance from him that these men will not be used as we fear they will be used. In law that assurance is valueless. The terms of the statute alone express the powers that may be exercised. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was therefore so wholly unconvincing that our suspicions are rather hardened by his refusal to incorporate the suggested words in the terms of the statute.
I expressly ask him why he will not insert in the Act words which would give us a statutory reassurance, and which
would expressly limit the duties of these men to the range of service which we are assured they will be required to perform? The new Clause does not propose in any way to interfere with the services of special constables for the particular purpose for which they are being recruited. It does not seek, and in no way does it contemplate, a restriction of the duties for which these men are being expressly enlisted, and while not in any way interfering with their proper duties, it does ask the House to declare that these men shall not take sides in a dispute. If they do take sides, we know from our experience that there is only one side they will take, and that is, they will take the side which is against the men and necessarily and inevitably on the side of the employers. We are entitled to a fuller and more convincing statement than that given by the Home Secretary. If we cannot have such an assurance he can scarcely expect us to place any value upon his assurance, and the new Clause must be pressed to a Division.

Mr. PRINGLE: This subject is so important that it cannot be disposed of simply by the assurance of the Home Secretary. The difficulties that have arisen on this question have arisen on the unofficial reply of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson). He distinguished between two kinds of industrial dispute; one a partial strike occurring in his own works, and in which he would have been merely concerned with his own men and in which case special constables could not be employed, and the other a strike on a larger scale which paralysed one essential service of the community, in which case he maintained that, as in the railway strike of 1919, it would be justifiable to employ special constables. I was inclined to give some attention to that unofficial reply, because the speech was made after some consultation with the Home Secretary, and I was surprised when the Home Secretary made a speech of a quite different character. The Home Secretary opposed the new Clause because he said it was unnecessary. He said that under the Act of 1831 special constables could not be employed in the way contemplated in the new Clause. I have taken the trouble to refer to the Act of 1831 with
a view to seeing whether the exact words cover the object mentioned in the new Clause. The words in the first section of the Act are:
For the preservation of the public peace, for the protection of the inhabitants and the security of property.
It is possible that the words "for the protection of the inhabitants" might be so construed as to cover the employment of special constables in such essential service. That was the interpretation given by the hon. Member for Mossley. He said we had to consider whether for the preservation of the inhabitants it would not be necessary to organise some independent force to govern and run certain transport services. "Protection of the inhabitants" covers a great deal. It is not only that they might be attacked, but it might be that they had not the means of life, and I suggest that these words might be construed to cover service in such a strike as that mentioned by the hon. Member for Mossley. I do not think any assurance of the Home Secretary is sufficient to cover that. It becomes a question of interpretation. The special constables would be subject to penalties for breach of orders. Penalties are prescribed in the Act of 1831. If a special constable were asked to go to work at an electricity station or to run a locomotive and he refused to do so on the ground of the assurance given by the Home Secretary to-day, that assurance would be no protection for him. He might be summoned under the Clause? which imposes penalties, and he would be subject to penalties for each breach if the words were construed in the sense that I have construed them.
I submit that in these circumstances, as there is a doubt, it is essential that the new Clause should be inserted in the Bill. The Home Secretary says that he has no objection, on the merits. His objection is that the new Clause is unnecessary. It is the first time I have heard of a new Clause being refused on the ground that it is unnecessary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I would remind hon. Members that in the Bill we passed last week, two Amendments were inserted in Committee, although the Attorney-General said they were quite unnecessary. He agreed to their insertion, however, on the ground that they gave greater
security. This is a case in which we want to give security. There is a great deal of doubt, misgiving and suspicion abroad and if the Home Secretary wants to remove this doubt and suspicion there could be no harm in inserting this new Clause. It will not prevent him doing anything he desires to do or anything that he contemplates doing. It will strengthen him in refraining from doing what he wants to refrain from doing. There may be Home Secretaries in the future who do not pay any attention to the assurances that have been given and who will look up the Statute of 1831 and say: "It justifies me in employing special constables for this purpose, and I am going to do it." Let us have words in the Bill so that any future Home Secretary will not be allowed to do that. No difficulty need arise.

Sir ALFRED MOND: Could not the Home Secretary see his way to accept this Amendment? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I have listened to the Debate very carefully and to the remarks of the Home Secretary and I understand that he considers the Amendment unnecessary on the ground that the language of the Act of 1831 fully covers the point. That is the only reason which he gave. He assured the House that it had never been the intention at any time to use special constables as substitutes for men on strike. On that point we do not disagree. The only disagreement is a purely verbal one and that is, whether the Act of 1831 carries out our desires fully or whether other words are needed to make it absolutely certain in the present Bill. I feel inclined, looking at the matter in a general way, to agree with the interpretation of the Home Secretary, but, apparently, doubt has crept in and may still further creep in. This Bill is a very exceptional Bill. The Government is asking for exceptional measures, to which we do not object on these benches; but we say that everything ought to be done to banish any kind of suspicion or any possibility of its being held out in the country that this is an elaborate attempt for the establishment of the Fascisti or any other of that kind of organisation which neither the Government nor any party in this country wants to do. Would not the Home Secretary be well advised to dispel the doubt which has arisen, and which
has been expressed in Debate, especially in the extremely moderate and convincing speech of the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). If he did so he would find that he was doing a good thing from the point of view of the Bill and from the point of view of the Government. If he cannot do that, I shall feel it to be my duty to vote for the Amendment.

Mr. HAYES: We ought to approach this new Clause from the point of view of what is the correct interpretation of the duties of a police officer. There has been a good deal of disagreement in this Debate as to what are the duties of a police officer in a certain set of circumstances. I think that the Home Secretary is inclined to agree with Members on these benches rather than with Members behind him. The Act of 1831 makes provision for the appointment of special constables to presereve the peace, and for the protection of the inhabitants and the security of property. My experience, and I think the experience of the Courts, also points to the necessity for a legal interpretation of those words. The interpretation is left to the superior officer who is in charge of special constables, and who may differ from the Home Secretary, and the position of the special constable is that he is instructed by his superior officer to carry out a certain duty, which in the opinion of a special constable might be taking part in a trade dispute, and if that special constable declines to carry out the orders of that superior officer, despite the fact that the interpretation of the officer may be at variance with that of the Home Secretary, the special constable is liable to penalties and may be subject to fine or imprisonment or both.
Therefore, in the interests of the special constable, and also of the superior officer who may have no conception of the duties of those placed under his command, and also in view of the fact that there is a possibility of the special constable being placed under the control of people who are not experienced police officers this Amendment should be accepted. To get a true conception of a policeman's duties one has to spend a considerable number of years in the regular constabulary, and even then we are sometimes at variance with other people as to whether we are keeping
within the confines of real police work. On these questions of trade disputes the Home Secretary has informed us that the duties of the special constables are very clear, merely those of a police officer. On the Second Reading the Under-Secretary said that the special constables would know very well what their duties would have to be when they joined, and if they did not care to go into a force when they might be called upon to perform certain duties, they should not join that force. We want to help the Home Secretary in this matter. We do not want to be contentious over this particular Clause, because to my mind it removes the main bone of contention between this side and that side of the House. If the Home Secretary can define police duty, and he says that the definition of police duty is that these special constables shall not take part in industrial disputes, why not put that in the Bill in order that there may be no misconception of what is intended by those who have introduced the Bill?
It is said that special constables are never, and have never been, called on by the authorities to engage in industrial disputes. I am sorry to have to differ from the right hon. Gentleman on that point. I could tell of cases in which not only special constables but also unfortunately, due to the misconception of superior officers, regular constables at times have taken part in industrial disputes, in a manner really beyond the powers of the police. During the time of a colliery dispute, General Macready, who in course of time found himself chief of the police at New Scotland Yard, while in charge of the military at the Tonypandy riots submitted a report to the Home Office or the War Office—I am not sure which, but I have seen a copy of a portion of it—in which he made it clear that the colliery owners seemed to have an idea that when there was a trade dispute, and they received the assistance of the regular police, the regular police were there to do the bidding of the colliery owners instead of doing the bidding of the police authorities in respect of police duties, and boilers were actually fired by police in these disputes, due to a misconception of duty by the superior officers. We do not want the possibility of this happening again. Special constables also
have been used in connection with industrial disputes.
I do not think the House will have all its uneasiness suddenly dispelled by the statement of the Home Secretary. I would remind the House of what actually happened in 1919. Telegrams were sent from New Scotland Yard to the various commanders of special constables in the various areas of the Metropolitan district asking that men who had a knowledge of motoring or electrical engineering should be asked to parade for duty at a certain time. "Duty" was the word used in the telegram, and it would be a violation of duty if they did not carry out the orders of the superior officer placed in charge of them. When the men paraded they were told not to parade in police uniform; to lose their identity, so far as the public were concerned, as members of the special constabulary, that they should wear their oldest clothing and that they would be sent to do duty at certain power stations in the Metropolitan area. It may be all very well for certain Members to argue from their point of view that that is legitimate employment, and that view is held very definitely by Members who will probably go into the Lobby to support the right hon. Member's Bill, but it is not the correct point of view, if we accept what the Home Secretary says with regard to the proper function of the special constables. We trust that the Home Secretary will accept this Amendment which merely makes clear a question of interpretation, so as to avoid the possibility of a repetition of what has unfortunately occurred in the past with regard to industrial disputes.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: This is a most important discussion, far more important than some of us realise. I am supporting this Amendment because I think the Government will be making a great mistake in playing into the hands of those who are definitely collected in a great organisation to act both in an illegal and a legal manner towards bringing about a revolution. There are those on the other side representing people who take means of getting behind the law, and all that we are asking for now is the inclusion of this particular Clause, and if we do not adopt it it would be taken as a further proof by those of whom I speak as to the subtlety of the methods which have been
adopted, and to which very specific testimony has been given by the last speaker, who has special knowledge of the subject. Personally, I have some knowledge of his reference to the calls that have been made upon constables. I am not asking the Government to view it from the standpoint of the Labour movement. We call upon the Government to put this into the Bill, because we think it esssential in the best interests of all concerned, but at the same time I am bound to state that it is a very serious position for a trade union, which has perhaps the largest organisation, so far as the jute and mill factory workers are concerned, to carry through a recent strike, which brought tens of thousands of people into the streets, and deliberately evade their own trade union by-law which guaranteed the members that no such strike could be taken, without a two-thirds majority

being secured on a ballot, while no such ballot was taken. Communistic influences are operating. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: The remarks of the hon. Member are not relevant.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I was endeavouring to show that if we call for the inclusion of this Clause it is essential that every section of society shall adhere to the laws which they have adopted in order to obtain that security which we are advocating. If this Clause is not introduced, then we are encouraging those forces which will lead up to some such result as that to which I have referred.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 246.

CLAUSE 1.—(Perpetuation of 4 and 5 Geo. 5, c. 61.)

(1) Section one of the Special Constables Act, 1914, which confers power to make Regulations with respect to special constables appointed during the War, shall have effect as though the words "during the present War" were omitted therefrom, and as though for the power thereby conferred to apply to special constables any of the provisions of the Police Acts, 1839 to 1910, or the corresponding Scottish enactments, there were substituted power so to apply any enactment for the time being in force relating to the county, borough, or metropolitan police, or in Scotland the county or burgh police.

(2) The reference to the Special Constables Act, 1914, in the First Schedule to the War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Act, 1920, is hereby repealed.

(3) This Section shall not apply to Northern Ireland.

Mr SPEAKER: The first Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Warne—to leave out the Clause)—is out of Order, because it is equivalent to a negative of the Bill. The same thing applies to the two following Amendments, standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood)—at the beginning of the Clause to insert the words, "Except for the provisions of paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) of," and in Sub-section (1), after "1914," to insert the words, "the afore-mentioned section one." The next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes)—in Sub-section (1), after the word, "though" ["as though the words"], to insert the words
the special constables who may be nominated and appointed, although a tumult, riot, or felony has not taken place or is not immediately apprehended, shall be persons who have served in a police force, and as though"—
is outside the scope of the Bill. The next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy)—in Sub-section (1), after the word "therefrom" ["were omitted therefrom"], to insert the words, "and the words 'until the thirty-first of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-five,' were substituted"—should have come as a new Clause. It would be governed by Standing Order 45, which requires the exact period of a temporary Bill to be stated in a separate Clause at the end of it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "police" ["burgh police"], to insert the words
Provided nevertheless that among the supplementary and ancillary matters authorised under the Regulations there shall not be included any method of selection, or nomination, or enlistment which shall in any way prejudice any British subject by reason of his race, religion, political opinions, or trades union membership.
It is not merely a matter of sentiment that makes us desire to see this proviso added to the Bill. From that point of view, it is undoubtedly desirable that there should be no sort of idea that anybody was excluded from the new special constables. There is a practical value in this Amendment, in addition. When we consider the amount of suspicion that has already been aroused by this Bill for the creation of this new force, it is desirable that there should be in the Bill a very clear statement that the new constabulary are to be drawn, not from any one class of the community, nor from any one political party. If the Government are in earnest in desiring to make this a force which will receive general approval, it is important that they should make it quite clear that it is not going to be any sort of new White Guard. All parties should be represented in the force. It should be quite clear that it is not the weapon of one political party, just as if we were on those benches, it would be as important to see that it was not a force directed by the Labour party in the interests of the Labour party.
Just as we do not want to see a Red Guard, neither do we rant to see a White Guard. Consequently, this provision, if inserted in the Bill, would be of real assistance. It has been pointed out over and over again during the discussion to-day, that the new constabulary might be considered to be the nucleus of the Fascisti. I think that the Fascisti are more of Southern European crowd, but we have in America a force similar in character, which is causing great disturbance and heartburnings in that country at the present time, namely, the Klu Klux Klan. The Kin Klux Klan started, of course, by being—[Laughter.] I know it is said that the Klu Klux Klan have come over here, and Captain Gee was to be their new leader.
The National Democratic Party took them on, but, unfortunately for their selection, the National Democratic Party seem to have vanished. The Klu Klux Klan began by being an anti-nigger organisation. It was started in the Southern States, but very soon the Klu Klux Klan, especially in its new creation, became not an anti-nigger body as much as anti-Labour and anti-Catholic. We do not want to have in this country anything of that nature, directed either towards Labour or towards religions which may not be popular at the moment. I would gladly see this new constabularly open to Catholics as well as to Protestants, to Mormons, to Prohibitionists, and, indeed, to all those extraneous bodies which are not popular, but which, nevertheless, ought, if they are to have fair play, to have fair representation in the new police force. Therefore, I hope the Home Secretary will see fit to add this Amendment in order that there may be no doubt whatever, either in his mind or in the mind of the country as a whole, that the Government, in recruiting this new body, are not actuated in any way by party or religious motives; but are anxious to have the body open to the community as a whole, in which every good citizen, whatever his political and religious views may be, can take a free, fair, and open part.

Mr. C. DUNCAN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to have found great pleasure in raising a bogey and then in knocking it down again. The special constabulary have been known to the public for years. We have had experience of the force for 93 years. Why, then, this extraordinary criticism when we are only doing the same as hitherto. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why this Bill?"] I have tried to explain to those who have condescended to listen to me. Our object is to enrol members now and not to wait until an emergency before we do it. As far as the conduct of this force is concerned it will be exactly the same as the conduct of the force that we now know. As far as I know, there has never been any suspicion of exclusiveness in selection. I have already stated that in the Metropolitan force 50 per cent. belong to what are called the working classes I have here an analysis of the personnel of one
division. In this division, out of a total of 600 men, only fourteen are professional men and only six are classified as of independent means. Therefore, the bulk of the members are not composed of the independent and the well-to-do. I entirely agree with the intention of this Amendment, but again I have to say that the Amendment is quite unnecessary, because it is not in the least likely that any such exclusiveness will be carried out, and, secondly, because any regulations which may be made have to be laid on the Table of the House and can be objected to by the House. If the hon. and gallant Member finds in the new regulations anything which would permit of an unfair selection to be made, he can vote against it, and, I have no doubt, would persuade many others to do the same.

Mr. C. BUXTON: The Home Secretary has founded his appeal more than once on the ground that this Bill is really no new departure, that it is simply continuing something already in existence, that there is no reason for anyone to be alarmed or suspicious or excited, and that there is no novel policy being put into force. It is very difficult to be satisfied with a mere general assurance of that kind. There is ground for suspicion; there are many new things open to doubt. First of all, there is to be a set of new Regulations. The powers given to the Home Secretary to make these new Regulations are very wide indeed. They allow him to introduce new features, if he is minded so to do. We do not suspect the Home Secretary of a profound or sinister motive in the matter, but we are not going to have the present Home Secretary always with us, and there is no telling what a future Home Secretary may not do in the Regulations. When the right hon. Gentleman says that we are merely continuing the practice of employing special constables which started with the Act of 1831 and has continued since, I am bound to reply, after looking at the enactments, that it is very difficult indeed to accept that as a satisfactory view of the matter, because the system of special constables as it has existed up to now, and as it appears under these Acts, has always been a system definitely adapted to a special emergency. The Act of 1831 is most obviously designed in every line to meet very special emergencies. We all know
what was the emergency which originated that Act. As the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) pointed out, it is a sinister, historical reference to make, because the Act was designed to meet the reform agitation, the first agitation in which the masses of the people claimed to exercise the right to the franchise. The Act was introduced to counter that agitation. It was so framed, however, that it could be used only for emergency.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: May I explain, again, that what this Bill does is to enable us to enroll men? They will not be called out except in times of emergency.

Mr. BUXTON: To enroll them without an emergency having arisen is a novelty. That is what makes this Bill a new departure. If it is not a new departure, why was it not possible to enroll them before without the emergency having arisen? We had the Act of 1914. Again it was to meet an emergency. The War was the emergency. The police force was depleted and various other special conditions prevailed. Now, admittedly, you have no emergency, yet you are starting a system of normally and permanently enrolling special constables in case of an emergency. The Bill uses the expression, "Although a tumult, riot or felony has not taken place," and there are also the words, "Although it is not immediately apprehended."

Captain BRASS: Is this discussion on the question of an emergency in order on the Amendment?

Mr. SPEAKER: I suppose that the argument is that it is this lack of emergency which justifies the insertion of the words of the Amendment.

Mr. BUXTON: The hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment alleges that there is a danger of something new and dangerous being done in discrimination between various classes of persons who may be enrolled, and the Home Secretary replies, "No, there, is nothing novel; it will be exactly the same as it has always been. There has never been discrimination and there is not to be discrimination now." In answer to that statement, I state that the question cannot be brushed aside as if the Bill were merely a continuation of the old
system. It is, in fact, a new departure, with very wide and, I submit, very dangerous possibilities in it.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: There are still suspicions remaining in my mind. I remember the operation of the 1914 Act. I remember that there were hundreds of people who were willing to serve as special constables, but because they were not officials of a certain employer they were not selected. In most of our colliery villages the officials of a particular employer were the people selected under the 1914 Act. Even if the Home Secretary, with the best of intentions, decides that enrollments shall be spread wide, I warn him that he had better take care to whom he deputes the power to select men. We are as anxious for peace as is any other section of citizens, but to place the selection in the hands of one individual in a large mining area would be entirely wrong, and would be more likely to create trouble than peace I hope that impartiality will be shown throughout the transaction.

Mr. RITSON: I would like to emphasise what the last speaker has said. It is an utter impossibility for the Home Secretary in some areas to leave the discrimination to certain people. It is a very fine thing to have a Home Secretary who is genial, but we do not keep these genial people all the time. The danger would come when you had someone in office who was not genial. That would be particularly the case in a strike or lock-out area. I am as anxious as the Home Secretary for peace. One of the things of which I am proud is that our people are peaceful to the backbone, but they would not be peaceful if such a selection of constables as we fear were made. In a great mining area like that with which I am connected, a boy goes into the union at 14 years of age. You cannot train him to be a special constable against his friends at the time of a strike or lock-out. I would like to utter a note of warning to the Home Secretary. I beg him to leave the thing alone. He may get some of the officials to do the work, but such an arrangement will be productive of trouble rather than anything else.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 118; Noes, 233.

Division No. 136.]
AYES.
[6.58 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Harbord, Arthur
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harney, E. A.
Nichol, Robert


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Harris, Percy A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Attlee, C. R.
Hastings, Patrick
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Batey, Joseph
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Phillipps, Vivian


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Bonwick, A.
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Potts, John S.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Pringle, W. M. R.


Briant, Frank
Herriotts, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Broad, F. A.
Hinds, John
Riley, Ben


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, G. H.
Ritson, J.


Buchanan, G.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Saklatvala, S.


Buckle, J.
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Salter, Dr. A.


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Hogge, James Myles
Scrymgeour, E.


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Sexton, James


Cairns, John
Irving, Dan
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Chapple, W. A.
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Simpson, J. Hope


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Snell, Harry


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Snowden, Philip


Collison, Levi
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Stephen, Campbell


Darblshire, C. W.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Sullivan, J.


Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Thornton, M.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Leach, W.
Tillett, Benjamin


Duffy, T. Gavan
Lee, F.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Duncan, C.
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Ede, James, Chuter
Linfield, F. C.
Warne, G. H.


Edge, Captain Sir William
Lunn, William
Webb, Sidney


Edmonds, G.
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Wheatley, J.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
M'Entee, V. L.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
McLaren, Andrew
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Falconer, J.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Whiteley, W.


Foot, Isaac
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Maxton, James
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Middleton, G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gosling, Harry
Millar, J. D.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morel, E. D.
Wintringham, Margaret


Groves, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)



Grundy, T. W.
Mosley, Oswald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Muir, John W.
Mr. Spoor and Mr. Ammon.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Greaves-Lord, Walter
Pease, William Edwin


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Penny, Frederick George


Apsley, Lord
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Peto, Basil E.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pielou, D. P.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Halstead, Major D.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Preston, Sir W. R.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Privett, F. J.


Barnston, Major Harry
Harrison, F. C.
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Harvey, Major S. E.
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hawke, John Anthony
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Remnant, Sir James


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rentoul, G. S.


Berry, Sir George
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Richardson, Sir Alex, (Gravesend)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Blundell, F. N.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)


Brass, Captain W.
Hood, Sir Joseph
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W.)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hopkins, John W. W.
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Houfton, John Plowright
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bruford, R.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Russell, William (Bolton)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hudson, Capt. A.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hughes, Collingwood
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hurd, Percy A.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Hurst, Lt.-Col Gerald Berkeley
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Sandon, Lord


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Cadogan, Major Edward
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Caine, Gordon Hall
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Shepperson, E. W.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cassels, J. D.
Jephcott, A. R.
Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Singleton, J. E.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Skelton, A. N.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sparkes, H. W.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Clarry, Reginald George
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Lord


Clayton, G. C.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Lorlmer, H. D.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Cope, Major William
Lumley, L. R.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Manville, Edward
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Crooke, J. S. (Derltend)
Margesson, H. D. R.
Tubbs, S. W.


Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Morcer, Colonel H.
Wallace, Captain E.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Waring, Major Walter


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Ednam, Viscount
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Wells, S. R.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Whitla, Sir William


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Murchison, C. K.
Winterton, Earl


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Nall, Major Joseph
Wise, Frederick


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Wolmer, Viscount


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Furness, G. J.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nield, Sir Herbert
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Garland, C. S.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut. Col. Sir John



Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Goff, Sir R. Park
Paget, T. G.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel




Gibbs.

Division No. 137.]
AYES.
[7.29 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hastings, Patrick
Nichol, Robert


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Attlee, C. R.
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Phillipps, Vivian


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Potts, John S.


Bonwick, A.
Herriotts, J.
Pringle, W. M. R.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hinds, John
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Briant, Frank
Hirst, G. H.
Riley, Ben


Broad, F. A.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Ritson, J.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Saklatvala, S.


Buchanan, G.
Hogge, James Myles
Salter, Dr. A.


Buckle, J.
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Scrymgeour, E.


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Irving, Dan
Sexton, James


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cairns, John
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Chapple, W. A.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Snell, Harry


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Snowden, Philip


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Collison, Levi
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Spoor, B. G.


Darbyshire, C. W.
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Leach, W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Thornton, M.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Tillett, Benjamin


Duffy, T. Gavan
Linfield, F. C.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Duncan, C.
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Ede, James Chuter
M'Entee, V. L.
Warne, G. H.


Edmonds, G.
McLaren, Andrew
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
March, S.
Wheatley, J.


Falconer, J.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'd'ne, E.)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Gosling, Harry
Maxton, James
Whiteley, W.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Middleton, G.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Millar, J. D.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Grundy, T. W.
Morel, E. D.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Mosley, Oswald
Wintringham, Margaret


Harbord, Arthur
Muir, John W.



Hardie, George D.
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harney, E. A.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Mr. Lunn and Mr Ammon.


Harris, Percy A.






NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Goff, Sir R. Park


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)


Apsley, Lord
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Clarry, Reginald George
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Clayton, G. C.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Llv'p'l, W. D'by)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Halstead, Major D.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)


Barnston, Major Harry
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Becker, Harry
Cope, Major William
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H (Devizes)
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Harrison, F. C.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Harvey, Major S. E.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hawke, John Anthony


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Betterton, Henry B.
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)


Blundell, F. N.
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Hilder, Lieut. Colonel Frank


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hiley, Sir Ernest


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Brass, Captain W.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hood, Sir Joseph


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Ednam, Viscount
Hopkins, John W. W.


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Houfton, John Plowrig[...]


Bruford, R.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Hudson, Capt. A.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Hughes, Collingwood


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Forestier-Walkar, L.
Hurd, Percy A.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley


Button, H. S.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)


Cadogan, Major Edward
Furness, G. J.
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)


Cassels, J. D.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Ganzoni, Sir John
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Garland, C. S.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert




Jarrett, G. W. S.
Paget, T. G.
Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.


Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Singleton, J. E.


Jephcott, A. R.
Pease, William Edwin
Skelton, A. N.


Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Penny, Frederick George
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sparkes, H. W.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Stanley, Lord


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Pielou, D. P.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Lamb, J. Q.
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. H.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Privett, F. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Lorimer, H. D.
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Raine, W.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Lumley, L. R.
Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Remer, J. R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Remnant, Sir James
Tubbs, S. W.


Manville, Edward
Rentoul, G. S.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
Wallace, Captain E.


Mercer, Colonel H.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Wells, S. R.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W)
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Whitla, Sir William


Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Winterton, Earl


Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Russell, William (Bolton)
Wise, Frederick


Murchison, C. K.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Wolmer, Viscount


Nall, Major Joseph
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Sandon, Lord



Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Nield, Sir Herbert
Shepperson, E. W.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Gibbs.

CLAUSE 2.—(Orders in Council to be laid before Parliament.)

Any Order in Council made after the passing of this Act under the Special Constables Act, 1914, as amended by this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either of those Houses within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such Order has been laid before it praying that the Regulations made thereby shall be annulled, His Majesty may thereupon by Order in Council annul the Regulations, and the Regulations so annulled shall forthwith become void, without prejudice to the validity of any proceedings which may in the meantime have been taken thereunder or to the making of any new Regulations:

Provided that Orders in Council under the said Act shall not be deemed to be statutory Rules within the meaning of Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes)—after the word "made" ["made after the passing"] to insert the words "before the passing of this Act under the Special Constables Act, 1914, or made"—is unnecessary. The Regulations will all come under this Bill. The three follow-
ing Amendments on the Paper, in the names of the hon. Members for Wansbeck (Mr. Warne) and Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood)—to leave out the word "if" ["if an address is presented"] and to insert instead thereof the word "unless"; to leave out the word "either" ["by either of those Houses"] and insert instead thereof the word "both"; and to leave out the word "annulled" ["shall be annulled"] and insert instead thereof the word "authorised"—are wrong in point of form.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: On that point, Sir, the Amendments which I have put upon the Paper were intended to ensure that Regulations made under the Act shall be capable of being debated in this House. As the Government has drafted the Clause, it provides that any Order in Council shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty praying that the Regulations shall be annulled, His Majesty may thereupon annul the Regulations. As is well known, that method of procedure is extremely difficult, and the object of the Amendment is to ensure that if anybody objects to the Regulations there shall be the possi-
bility of a Debate in the House. The Amendments seek to make the Clause read as follows:
Any Order in Council made after the passing of this Act.… shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and unless an Address is presented to His Majesty by both Houses, etc.
That is to ensure that an Address shall be presented confirming the Regulations rather than that an Address may be presented against the Regulations. The position is that if the Government choose to refuse time for a discussion of an Address against these Regulations, it is practically impossible to get any such discussion. These Regulations are the most important part of the Bill, and it is on these Regulations that questions will have to be thrashed out as to the training of the special constables. We shall have to discover then whether the special constables are intended purely for constabulary duties or are to undertake certain work in connection with certain classes of trade disputes. It is essential that any Regulations of that sort should be discussed in the House. The Government are following the bad habit of introducing a Bill and leaving all the real matter of the Bill to be dealt with under Regulations, and I submit we should have an opportunity of discussing these Regulations and it should not be left solely to the whim of the Government whether an opportunity for such discussion is allowed or not.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not here to deal with that point. All I have to consider is the question of order, and if the hon. and gallant Member's Amendments were accepted, they would reduce this Clause to a hopeless condition. I know what the hon. and gallant Member wants, and there is a standard form which would have been in order; but the Amendments that are before me would make the Clause quite hopeless, because first there would be an Order in Council made by His Majesty, and then a proposal that His Majesty should be authorised to make it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I put it to you that the effect of the Amendments would be to make the Clause read in this way:
Any Order in Council made after the passing of this Act under the Special Constables Act, 1914, as amended by this Act
shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and unless an Address is presented to His Majesty by both those Houses within 21 days on which that House has sat.… praying that the Regulations made thereby shall be authorised, etc.
I have only put down three Amendments here because the Debate will take place on the first of those Amendments, but it is obvious that there would have to be minor alterations lower down in the Clause in order to make it conform to the Amendments on the Paper.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid I really must adhere to the Parliamentary form in this matter. There is another method, but I cannot point it out now. In certain cases a Draft Order is placed before the House when authority or approval is required. The present Amendments, however, would wreck the Clause entirely.

CLAUSE 4.—(Removal of limitations on appointment of special constables.)

Section ninety-six of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892 (which relates to the appointment of special constables), shall both as originally enacted and as extended to counties by the Special Constables (Scotland) Act, 1914, have effect as if the words "of or exceeding the age of twenty years" were substituted for the words "between the ages of twenty and fifty" and the words "for a period not exceeding six months" were omitted.

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. Maxton)—to leave out the words "of or exceeding the age of twenty years" and insert "between the ages of thirty and sixty"—that should come in as a new Clause instead of an Amendment to Clause 4 which applies to Scotland. It would be quite impracticable to fix different age limits in different parts of the country.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was interested in this Clause also, and may I point out that we might use this as a means of getting a declaration from the Home Secretary on the question of enrolment and ages?

Mr. SPEAKER: That could be done equally well on Third Reading.

Mr. NICHOL: Even as the Bill stands, there is a distinction between Scotland
and England in the matter of ages. In England there are no age limits, whereas in Scotland there is a minimum limit.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that is so. The words "of or exceeding the age of twenty years" apply to both countries.

CLAUSE 5.—(Short title.)

This Act may be cited as the Special Constables Act, 1923, and the Special Constables Act, 1914, and this Act may be cited together as the Special Constables Acts, 1914 and 1923, and Sections ninety-six, ninety-seven, and ninety-eight of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, the Special Constables (Scotland) Act, 1914, and this Act as it applies to Scotland may be cited as the Special Constables (Scotland) Acts, 1892 to 1923.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. F. C. Thomson): I beg to move to leave out the words, "this Act as it applies," and to insert instead thereof the words
the Special Constables Act, 1914, and this Act as they apply.
This is purely a textual Amendment. It says that the two Acts for England, the Act of 1914 and the Act of this year, may be cited together as the Special Constables Acts, 1914 and 1923, and the Section proceeds to give the code for Scotland, beginning with Sections 96, 97, and 98 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, and the Special Constables (Scotland) Act, 1914. It omits, however, by a slip, the Special Constables Act, 1914, which this Act makes perpetual. It is the mere omission of one of the Acts applying to Scotland, and therefore, to make the reference to Scotland accurate and complete, I propose to insert these words.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. TREVELYAN: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
During these Debates, we have had from the Home Secretary neither any clear statement as to the necessity for this Bill, nor any concession at all in order to allay the suspicions that have been excited by it. The Home Secretary has been asked why he has brought in this
Bill, and whether the population of to-day is more lawless than it was for 60 or 70 years before the War. He denies, I understand, that the population is any more lawless than it was, and yet he wants more stringent powers and larger forces than his predecessors had from 1831 to 1914. Why, if the population is just as lawful as it was, does he now, instead of a rather casual force, as we all admit the old special constabulary force was, want a well drilled, carefully instructed, and, as far as I can understand, well paid force to take their place? He says that it is better to have this force of special constables than to have to use the military. I dare say many of us would agree with him there, but if you take the history of these years during which we had the old system, how many times were the military seriously used? Extremely seldom. In our time there was the trouble at Featherstone and at Tonypandy, but what we are afraid of is that this legislation is not for the special, rare occasions on which the military have been used in the past, but that this new special force may be frequently brought forward at periods of trade disputes when there is an excuse given that there is likely to be trouble.
One of our main objections is this, that, whereas if these disputes are left to the ordinary police, calling in, if necessary, other police from other districts, there is going to be no aggravation of political or economic feeling as a result of that, if you have this force brought in, which, by the action of the right hon. Gentleman to-day, is bound to be a class force, you will have an aggravation which would not exist if the ordinary forces were used. This is bound to be a class force, because of the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to accept our Amendments to-day. He says we are unjustly suspicious, but, if so, why does he not allay the suspicion? It is not only ourselves who are suspicious, but our constituents are suspicious. [An HON. MEMBER: "No wonder."] I have not been speaking, except in the House of Commons, and the moment I mentioned it yesterday at a big meeting in Newcastle people called out in all directions "White Guards." I am not asking hon. Members to agree. I am only saying that here in this House and in the country there is suspicion that this Bill is to be used for these purposes,
and it would have been perfectly simple to-day for the right hon. Gentleman to have allayed these suspicions by accepting an Amendment stating that this new force should not under any circumstances be used for trade disputes, but he would not do that, simply because he said the law was strong enough as it stands. Constantly in this House Clauses are put in in order to make the law stronger, and if the right hon. Gentleman had really wished to prove the sincerity of his determination that these special constables should never be used for trade disputes as a class organiation, he would have accepted some Amendment of that kind. That not being so, and as he has done nothing to allay the just suspicions with regard to this Bill, I hope we shall vote against the Third Reacting, as we voted against the Second Reading.

Mr. NICHOL: I beg to second the Amendment.
To-day, we have had a revelation in this House of how much class warfare actually exists, not only in practice, but, what is more to the point, in the whole mental outlook of a very large section of the House. We have had several amending Clauses, which would have removed some of the chief objections to the Bill, refused by the Home Secretary on the ground that they were already covered by the previous Acts dealing with special constables. Legislation by direct reference has many disadvantages, but this is a Bill that is legislating, not merely by direct reference to certain Acts, but very largely by implications of the meanings of certain phrases in some very old Acts, particularly the Act of 1831. It has been alleged that the suspicions have arisen on this side of the House. I admit that in the South of England, particularly during the crisis in 1914, the special constabulary proved of very great service and the analysis of the recruiting which was given by the Home Secretary for one division I have no doubt referred to the recruiting that did take place in that crisis, but in some parts of the country, particularly in the West of Scotland, the chief use that was found for special constables was in providing subjects for newspaper cartoons. That was about the only use that one ever saw made of them, but the present Bill has not even got the justification that the old Acts dealing with special constables
had. The one of 1831 dealt with a critical period in British political history, and the Act of 1914 was on all fours with that, but the present Bill is going to enact that what was previously held necessary only in a crisis is to become the normal procedure.
My own experience of the recruitment of special constables is not the experience of the division which was very partially analysed by the Home Secretary. My own impression is that the recruitment of special constables was almost entirely from one particular class in the community, a class that is not popular in times of trade disputes, and a class that is asking for trouble, to put it very shortly. There have been many arguments used that on no account will these special constables be used in trade disputes, but the fact that the safeguarding Amendments that were moved from this side were overwhelmingly defeated is a very clear indication, to say the least of it, that the terms used in the 1831 Act and in subsequent Acts are all so very vague and have all been interpreted so very widely in the past that they are absolutely no safeguard at all. By refusing these Amendments, the Government have stultified the whole Bill. They had the opportunity of preventing it being made a piece of class legislation, but they have demanded all the resources of their own side that the suspicions that certainly exist with regard to the Bill should be overwhelmingly confirmed, and in these circumstances there is no other course left fur us on these benches than to vote for the rejection of the Bill.

8.0 P.M.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am hampered very much in this question owing to my natural inability to envisage the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary in the rôle of a Dictator, and I will direct myself rather towards the possibility of Mr. Churchill sitting there than to the actual facts of the situation. For what purpose, if Machiavelli Churchill sat in the Home Office, would he use this? That is the problem before us. It is not possible for us to consider solely the present occupant of the office. What would Churchill say, and what would Churchill do? Those are the questions Which we have to ask ourselves. Given the powers that this Bill puts in the hands of the Home Secretary, what use could a Home Secretary make of them?
It will be obvious, in the first place, that the business part of the Bill is in the Regulations, which we have not got be fore us. Those Regulations will be laid on the Table of the House, but, unless the Government think that discussion of them is advisable in the public interest, there will be no possibility of critics of the Regulations making their voices heard. Consequently we are singularly helpless so far as these Regulations go. What will these Regulations contain? Undoubtedly these Regulations will deal with the whole idea of what the force can be used for. It can be shown in every case that the qualifying words in the Act of 1831 will not prevent that force being used in certain classes of trade disputes. For instance, I will illustrate my point, and I am quite certain that even the present Home Secretary will agree with me as to what is likely to happen. Supposing we have a mining dispute in this country and that the pumpmen are withdrawn. Then, with a view to saving property, the special constables may very well be used for the working of the pumps. It will be obviously a case that comes within the definition of the protection of property. In the same way, I am afraid you will find that a power station serving electric light to the district would be kept open in the interests of property, because the police would not be able to do their duty in the darkness. In nearly every case of trade disputes, you can drag in under the original definition of the original Act the desirability of using the special constables for the special purpose of the protection of property and the protection of society.
We have got no safeguard not that the present Home Secretary, who has pledged his word, but that future Home Secretaries such as the gentleman I have named will not use the Regulations not only to employ in that way but to educate the force for employment in that direction. The whole point of this Bill is to make the force permanent. In the old days before the War we were quite content with calling out the special constabulary far a special emergency. Now it is to be a permanent force, and that implies that they are to be trained. Are they to be trained to do point duty in Piccadilly? Are they to be trained for military operations? Are they to be trained in the use
of Mills bombs, or are they going to be trained to act as a strike-breaking force when that strike is against the community? I have no hesitation in saying that there are possible occupants of the Home Office who would use the force for breaking a strike which they thought was a strike against the community. Unfortunately, that is a matter of opinion, and you will find these constables used in future as a weapon for the community against the workmen in the industries in which a strike takes place. That is the really serious element. It is all very well to say that we can be over-suspicious. I do not think we are over-suspicious. I think that possibly the present Government would not employ the special constabulary in this way, but I am quite certain that some Government, given a situation which they thought dangerous to society, would jump at the opportunity of using this constabulary and training them for use in that direction. That is the situation we are up against and that, to my mind, is the idea at the back of this Bill.
All we can do we have done to make it less dangerous in that direction. We have asked the Government to insert a qualifying Amendment which would not only have tied the hands of the present Home Secretary but the hands of all future Home Secretaries. The only thing we have not been able to do is to discuss a couple of Amendments which would have tended to make the Bill more safe. It would be desirable to know whether there is to be much expense involved in this Bill. Are these special constables to be paid when they are being trained or not? What is to be the total financial liability of the taxpayer under this scheme? How many special constables are to be enrolled? How many are to be in the permanent force? What is the staff to be? Where is the staff to be organised from, the War Office or the Home Office or Scotland Yard? These are questions. I think, about which we, ought to have some information before the debate closes. We ought to have some indication even at this late hour from the Government about these matters on which I think we are rightly suspicious. We think we should have some security that we will be able to have a debate in this House on the regulations. The Clause as it stands does not give us that security.
Can we have even now some pledge from the Government which would be binding so far as this Government are concerned as to how many regulations there are to be? And if, through the usual channels, the Opposition make known their objection to the regulations, can he give us an assurance that these regulations shall be debated in the House so that we shall have an opportunity of debating whether these regulations infringe in any way the pledge he has given during this debate?

Mr. HAYES: I shall not detain the House except to traverse one or two points which I think will be worthy of consideration, in the position we are up against on the Third Reading of this Bill. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down referred to the question of expenses of special constabulary, and I think the House would be very glad to have some information from the Home Secretary on this point, and as to the methods of organisation which are to be adopted in the country. Up and down the country in the last two years the numbers of the special constables have fluctuated. I think there has been a decrease of about 2,000 last year over the previous year, but the expenditure in conection with the special constabulary, instead of decreasing as the numbers decreased, has very considerably increased. It would be interesting to know just how the high rate of expenditure arises, in view of the fact that the necessity for the purchase of uniforms has not been so great during the two years since the War as it was during the War. I hope we shall have some information on that. I notice that in the report of His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary his references to the special constabulary are such as to make it clear that the expenses of that establishment will be borne upon the Police Fund with very much licence so far as the authorities are concerned.
In the City of London the staff officer, who is appointed on a permanent basis, is in receipt not of a very magnificent sum I agree, of £8 a week, so that, so far as the City of London is concerned, there is one permanent officer of the special constabulary at a cost of £400 per annum. But the expenditure in connection with the upkeep of the Special Constabulary force cannot altogether be judged by the actual expenditure in
salaries of permanent officials, because it is within my knowledge, and I think it can be varified by the Home Secretary, that for the purposes of the staff officer of the City of London carrying out his duties, he has to have the full-time assistance of one regular sergeant and I believe two regular constables. So that in estimating the actual expenditure that will fall on the ratepayers in connection with the maintenance of the Special Constabulary, against £400 that appears in the official figures, we shall have something like £1,000 actually being spent on the maintenance of the force. In Scotland Yard, which is the headquarters of the Metropolitan Special Constabulary, we have a very small staff, but it is rather interesting to note that we have a special staff officer permanently employed at Scotland Yard and in receipt of £12 10s. per week, and a financial officer who is paid a similar sum. Then there is one clerk at £5 a week, and one assistant clerk at £4 a week, and a typist at £3 5s., so that for a staff Officer and finance officer in receipt of £12 10s. each per week, we have a clerk, an assistant clerk, and a typist to do the clerical work. Their salaries are quite small, I admit, but they are respectable salaries, and I am not complaining about them.
It seems to me that the organisation of the special constabulary is to be a growing expenditure. We have in London something like 22 divisional establishments for the special constabulary, and there is a personal expenditure allowance of something like £84 per week incurred. That amount is to grow with the development of the idea that has taken root with regard to the necessity for the special constabulary. I wanted to propose what I considered a very practicable solution for the establishment of an auxiliary police service, but because my proposal rather interfered with the principle of the original Act, it was one which could not very well come before the House. It proves the lack of wisdom of putting on a permanent basis what should be an essentially peace measure, to actually build upon material that was formulated as a result of wartime ideas. That is where the trouble is arising. If only the Home Secretary had acted upon the recommendations of His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary in his last Report, who recommended that the whole
of the law relating to the special constabulary should be codified and consolidated and brought up to date, there would not have been this trouble. But the Bill before the House does nothing of the kind. It merely gives us another Statute, and we simply have to act under this Bill by a reference from one Statute to another. People who have not a forensic mind will have difficulty in understanding the various references made.
The Bill is bad in principle and bad in construction. We are not able to discuss the issues involved in the original Act of Parliament, and now we are to have it perpetuated by a process which I cannot conceive to be a legal process. I believe the Home Secretary did say that the original Act of Parliament merely authorised the appointment of special constables, and the inference was that the Act did not make it necessary to abolish the special constabulary when the War was over. I do not think this House was under any other impression, when the Special Constables Act of 1914 was discussed, than that the Act had reference only to the War. In 1914, when Parliament was asked to give a Measure that would enable new police to come on the establishment of a special constabulary force, there would not have been the wholesale support then of that Bill in Parliament could have known that when the War was over the force was to be perpetuated. The wording of the Act is that the appointment of special constables shall be "during the present War." Therefore the Act would have ordinarily passed away from our Statute Book, because when the War was over the necessity for its existence was no longer there. I think the Emergency Powers (Continuance) Act, 1920, did extend the life of that Act of Parliament until the 31st August, 1922, but when the 31st August, 1922, had passed, there was no longer statutory provisions for the appointment of the special constabulary force, and, to my mind, it is rather a serious position. After so many months have elapsed since the Act of Parliament ceased to function, when you can no longer appoint special constables under any Act of Parliament, it is almost inexplicable to me where you get the authority even to pay the permanent officials who are engaged upon
a force which ought not to exist. It is a legal point which, I think, the House is entitled to have cleared up. It may arise, but I hope no one will take out an injunction against the Home Secretary for acting in this way, or that the public audit will result in a surcharge on the Home Secretary. The position, however, is one which ought to have some consideration.
One of the practical proposals which one would have liked the Government to consider was a proposal which had the recommendation of the Government itself. We have something like 25,000 police pensioners in this country—men who, because of their good record, character, and health, have been able at 45 to 50 years of age to retire on a pension. They leave the service in the prime of life, and they have gained in their long experience a great deal in the way of tact, discretion and understanding of the law of the land, and the psychology of the people with whom they have to deal. It is a thousand pities that the value to the country of that body of men should not have been utilised by the Government in establishing a real and effective auxiliary unit, which would be something far superior to the special constabulary. I do not know whether it will be considered there are enough pensioners to perform that function. We have something like 5,000 of them in London, and we have only 12,000 special constables in London. These regular policemen, although they may be pensioned, are nevertheless hale and hearty, and quite prepared to render real, honest police service in case of emergency or necessity, such as a riot or tumult. It is not necessary, therefore, to spend money on a permanent establishment when you have a reserve of police officers, thoroughly trained and competent, with splendid records, with characters above suspicion, when you have at your disposal in London something like 5,000, who would be a far more effective unit than the untrained special constabulary.
During the War we utilised the services of these men. I do not want to say anything about the treatment they received. That is not the fault of the present Government, who, I think, have far more sympathy with the pensioners than the late Government. But these men were used during the War. They were found
exceedingly effective. Large numbers of these pensioners who rejoined the Service, and came in as inspectors, station sergeants, sergeants, and constables, men who were able to get into uniform immediately for station duty and perform ordinary beat duty and night duty, knew how to deal with the depredations of the general public, and with congregations of people arising out of the air raids—I say those men were fitted to become policemen at a few moments' notice, and were not the type of men who would frighten the public, which would not realise that they were anything but ordinary policemen. I think it is a very practical proposition to bring before the House, and the pity of it is that the Government have not seen fit to take advantage of this reserve of really good servants. The Home Secretary, in introducing this Bill, remarked that after very careful consideration a Committee, which I agree had the support and goodwill of Members of this House, as well as of the police service, namely, the Desborough Committee, recommended this form of procedure to save for the future that which we created out of our needs during the War, and that was one of the reasons why the Government brought forward this Bill. I want to examine that recommendation of the Desborough Committee. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant) is not in his place, as he was a member of that Committee. All the evidence that was taken was taken from the lowest ranks of the service to the highest, and, in the main, you had the considered experience of men who were heart and soul in their work. The Committee were untiring in their inquiry into all circumstances relating to police organisation. I do not think we could pay a tribute that would be too high to the work which was done by this Committee. But that does not imply that I have to accept every word of their recommendations, and, with every respect to that Committee, I do say that on this question of special constables they were sadly in error. It has been argued against me that two members of the Labour party did actually sign that Report, but those two members did not have the same opportunity of becoming acquainted with the full facts with regard to the special
constabulary as they did with regard to the regular constabulary.
I want to examine the evidence taken by the Committee with regard to special constables. I was one of the witnesses myself, and although the remark was made that perhaps years ago I might have given a point of view which might be more acceptable to the Government of the day than this, I think it will be admitted by those interested in the Committee that the very view I have expressed to-day and on Second Reading with regard to the special constables is in conformity with the evidence I gave to that Committee four years ago, when I was serving as a police officer. I want to bring to the notice of hon. Members that there was no evidence with regard to the recommendation for the continuation of special constables taken from experienced police officers before that Committee, and the only evidence on which the Desborough Committee recommended this legislation to the Government was that of the official point of view, expressed by an assistant secretary to the Home Office itself. In other words, the Desborough Committee recommended the passing of this Measure merely because the official mind of the Home Office had spoken in favour of special constables.
There is one other point—and I hope the Home Secretary will give a very clear answer to this question—one I have not raised before in debate. I hope that this Bill, if it becomes law, will not be utilised—he can tell us whether or not it is intended for that purpose—in any shape or form to cheapen or lower the standard of life of the regular police force. Section 3 of this Bill does make provision for the permanent employment—out of the funds of the Admiralty and War Office, I presume—of special constables in certain dockyards and military stations. If this Bill is in any shape or form to be utilised for lowering the standard of remuneration of the police forces throughout the country—I cannot think that is what the Home Secretary intends—it would be the very grossest violation of pledges made from time to time since the status of the police force was raised from the old time status in which they were really little more or less than the lowest paid workmen in the country. I want to appeal to the Government on behalf of the
future of the special constables not to commit what I consider would be a disregard of their conduct during the War. In that respect I should like the right hon. Gentleman to bear this in mind: in the old regulations under which the special constables served it said that the Home Secretary "may" grant gratuities and pensions to special constables and their dependants if injured in the execution of their duty. Whatever we may have said on this side of the House in regard to the special constabulary we at least appeal to the Home Secretary, if the Government are going to have special constables, that they at least will place themselves under statutory provision, and that the Act shall say "shall" and not "may"—"shall" grant gratuities, etc. The future remuneration of special constables who suffer injury in the execution of their duty should be the same as is accorded to the regular force. I think that will be regarded as a proper, and even magnanimous, point of view to put forward from benches where we have opposed the Bill. We want to have regard to that, and we also want to have regard to a definition of the real duties of special constables. Under no circumstance should they be placed under the control of any other but experienced police officers.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I really think there is not very much to be said, because I am afraid it is practically impossible to convince some hon. Members opposite of the good intentions of the Government in proposing this Bill. The question has been put to me by the Member for Edge Hill (Mr Hayes) about the Governmental intentions as to police pay. It never occurred to us for a moment in any way to suggest or to put forward anything that would lower the standard of the pay of the regular police. Then, as regards our intention of bringing in a large force of these volunteers to come under the head of special constabulary, the number enrolled in England and Wales during the War was 91,000, in the Metropolis 15,000—altogether a force of 119,000.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: How much of the cost will be paid for by the localities?

Mr BRIDGEMAN: The cost will be paid out of the Police Fund, half out of the local funds, and half from national
sources. In respect to the special constabulary, they are mostly unpaid, but there will be a certain amount of staff attached and there are certain out-of-pocket expenses to pay to special constables.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: As to this, will 50 per cent. of the cost come from the rates and 50 per cent. from the Exchequer?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes. There is no intention under this Bill of enrolling very large numbers, the object being rather to prevent the numbers gradually dwindling away altogether. We pass this Bill to prevent that disability. The hon. Gentleman asked whether it was legal to pay for those who are still enrolled. I think I mentioned on the Second Reading I have the power to pay those who are still in existence, but I have not got power to enrol new members of the force. However, as I say, there is no intention of raising an enormous force, but merely to keep the members at about the level of those at present enrolled.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: While on that point, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the contemplated number and also what are the present numbers?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There is no intention of going in excess of the present numbers, but I do not know that I can go into exact figures. The figures will be somewhere about what they were during the War period. They might go a little beyond the present figures. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked what would be the duties of these special constables. They will only be called out when the police authorities require their assistance, and then they will be given such duties as they are capable of performing, while naturally the regular police will take the more difficult and arduous duties for which they are qualified, and for which they are trained. The special constabulary may be used on ceremonial occasions, but except for these they will not be made use of save on the occasions that the police need them, and only then for duties of which they are capable.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman inquired about Regulations. It is quite true that there is some importance to be attached to Regulations as Orders in Council. But these Regulations will
be able to be discussed, perhaps at a not very convenient hour, but certainly they can be discussed. I hope, however, very much that when the Regulations do appear that some of the very curious apprehensions of hon. Members opposite will disappear. They will then see that the terrible prospects they have conjured up are not likely to be realised. Several questions were put to me by the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Trevelyan). He asked whether I thought the country more lawless now than before the War. I do not think anything of the kind. This Bill is not based on considerations of that sort, but merely that we may be ready, as I have said over and over again, with a force we know something about and which we can make use of if occasion requires. He seemed to think a much larger force was in prospect. I do not agree. The force will be about the same as before, and most of them will not be paid at all. He suggested this was going to be a class force. There I entirely and absolutely disagree from him. It was not a class force before and if now he and his friends will not join, then they are doing what they can to make it a class force. There is no reason why they should not join again. As I have said over and over again, the special constabulary are very largely recruited from the classes who have to do manual work. If there is one thing more than another the special constabulary resent it is to be accused of being a class force. They have never been one. They are not one. They will not be one in the future.

Mr. CHARLES BUXTON: I wish to point out that while the Home Secretary has done his very best within the limits that are allowed to him to meet the desire for information of those who sit on this side of the House, I wish to say that he has done nothing to allay the suspicions to which he has referred. In his concluding speech the right hon. Gentleman has even left those suspicions somewhat greater than at the beginning of the Debate. It is difficult to deal with the many aspects and doubts which still remain as to how this force is to be appointed and used, how large it is to be; how much it is going to cost, and so forth. Very little allusion has been made to the point that the powers under which the Home Secretary acts are so wide under the Act of 1831 that he might make this Measure
practically one of conscription. Under the Act of 1831 special constables are not necessarily volunteers, because they may be compelled to serve, and penalties are enforced for refusing to serve. There are penalties for refusing to attend where you are summoned, for refusing to take the oath or serving, and for refusing to obey orders.
There is absolutely no limitation in this Act on the numbers that may be employed, and this House has always viewed with the utmost suspicion every attempt to increase the armed forces of the Crown. The Home Secretary seems to think we are very unreasonable in being suspicious in regard to this matter. In view of the bland and charming way the right hon. Gentleman assures us of the absolute innocence of his own intentions, I would like to say that if we look back to the history of this House, it has always been extremely suspicious in these matters, and it has always been considered right and proper that in all matters where the increase of the armed forces of the Crown is involved this House should be suspicious. On this question we have done nothing more than to carry on the long-established traditions of this House.
This is not a small matter, and I suggest that on the Government side they have introduced this Measure very largely, as far as those introducing it were concerned, in perfect good faith, but without realising the wide nature of the question they were raising, and its far-reaching implications. I do not believe that they realise the width of the subject. We have had the figures given to us by the Home Secretary. This is to be a force of more than 100,000 men, and it is one thing to raise a force like that, either for the emergencies contemplated by riots, or for the emergencies created by war under special war conditions it is one thing to raise a force for that purpose, but it is quite another thing to raise it as a permanent measure. The very title of this Bill is significant; it does not merely say it is one to continue the Special Constables Act; it does not even say that it is to make permanent the Special Constables Act, but to make it perpetual.
Here we have a total force to be raised of 118,000 men, and while the Home Secretary, first of all, said that his object was to prevent this force dwindling away, he afterwards said that the Govern-
ment might wish to keep this force something like what it was in the War period, and that was a larger force than it is now. The expressions the right hon. Gentleman used was, "something above what it is now." Therefore it is not merely to be 118,000 men, but a force possibly of a still larger character. If these gradual and slowly extracted admissions lead to an increase of suspicion, I do not think that we on this side of the House can be blamed for it. Anyone who looks at the legislation concerned, the extremely wide powers conferred upon the Home Secretary, and the

complete absence of any limitation of the powers of all kinds conferred on the Home Secretary, will realise that we have good reasons to be suspicious. All I wish to say in conclusion is that we at any rate have acquitted ourselves of any responsibility. In spite of all our protests, the Government persist in pressing this Measure forward, and therefor they must take the whole of the responsibility themselves.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 107.

Division No. 138.]
AYES.
[8.45 p.m.


Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S)
Hurd, Percy A.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)


Apsley, Lord
Edge, Captain Sir William
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Ednam, Viscount
Jarrett, G. W. S.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Jephcott, A. R.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul


Barlow, Rt. Hon Sir Montague
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Barnston, Major Harry
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Ford, Patrick Johnston
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Berry, Sir George
Forestier-Walker, L.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Betterton, Henry B.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Lamb, J. Q.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Blundell, F. N.
Furness, G. J.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lorimer, H. D.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Brass, Captain W.
Garland, C. S.
Lumley, L. R.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Gates, Percy
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Gilbert, James Daniel
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Goff, Sir R. Park
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Bruford, R.
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Manville, Edward


Buckley, Lieut-Colonel A.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Mercer, Colonel H.


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Button, H. S.
Halstead, Major D.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Molloy, Major L. G. S.


Camplon, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Cassels, J. D.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Harrison, F. C.
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Harvey, Major S. E.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hawke, John Anthony
Murchison, C. K.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Nall, Major Joseph


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Clarry, Reginald George
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Clayton, G. C.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hinds, John
Nield, Sir Herbert


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Paget, T. G.


Cope, Major William
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Hood, Sir Joseph
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Pease, William Edwin


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Houfton, John Plowright
Penny, Frederick George


Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hudson, Capt. A.
Pielou, D. P.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Hughes, Collingwood
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Privett, F. J.
Sandon, Lord
Tubbs, S. W.


Raine, W.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Shepperson, E. W.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col K. P.


Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wallace, Captain E.


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Remer, J. R.
Singleton, J. E.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Rentoul, G. S.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Wells, S. R.


Reynolds, W. G. W.
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Sparkes, H. W.
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.
Whitla, Sir William


Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Stanley, Lord
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesail)
Steel, Major S. Strang
Winterton, Earl


Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W)
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)
Wise, Frederick


Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Wolmer, Viscount


Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Russell, William (Bolton)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.



Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Titchfield, Marquess of
Gibbs.


Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Potts, John S.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Pringle, W. M. R.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Richards, R.


Attlee, C. R.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Batey, Joseph
Herriotts, J.
Riley, Ben


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hirst, G. H.
Ritson, J.


Bonwick, A.
Hodge, Lieut-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hogge, James Myles
Rose, Frank H.


Briant, Frank
Irving, Dan
Saklatvala, S.


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Salter, Dr. A.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Scrymgeour, E.


Buchanan, G.
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Sexton, James


Buckle, J.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Snell, Harry


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Lansbury, George
Snowden, Philip


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Lawson, John James
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Cairns, John
Leach, W.
Stephen, Campbell


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Lee, F.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Sullivan, J.


Collison, Levi
Linfield, F. C.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Thornton, M.


Darbyshire, C. W.
M'Entee, V. L.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
McLaren, Andrew
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Warne, G. H.


Duffy, T. Gavan
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duncan, C.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Ede, James Chuter
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'd'ne, E.)
Weir, L. M.


Edmonds, G.
Maxton, James
Wheatley, J.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Middleton, G.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Foot, Isaac
Millar, J. D.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Gosling, Harry
Morel, E. D.
Whiteley, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Grundy, T. W.
Muir, John W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hardie, George D.
Nichol, Robert
Wintringham, Margaret


Harney, E. A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Hastings, Patrick
Phillipps, Vivian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Ammon and Mr. Lunn.


Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — EXPLOSIVES BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The last Bill was a very controversial one, but I think I can say, without fear of
contradiction, that the present Bill is quite uncontroversial in character. Its purpose is merely to amend the Explosives Act, 1875, which has not been found sufficiently watertight to prevent very serious accidents. This Bill is introduced merely for the greater security of human life. In the Act of 1875 it is laid down that due precautions must be taken for the prevention of accidents, but there is absolutely no power taken in that Act to prescribe what kind of precautions ought to be taken, or, in default of the taking of those precautions by the
occupier, to secure that the precautions shall be taken. The only remedy at the present moment under that Act is to go to the Courts and get a penalty.
Clause 1 of this Bill fills that gap. It gives to the Home Office power to specify the kind of precautions that it thinks ought to be taken in any factory, magazine or store of the kind referred to, and, secondly, in default of the occupier taking those precautions, power is given to the Home Office to carry out those precautionary measures itself. Again, under the old Act, persons under 16 were not allowed to work in any danger building except under the supervision of a person of the age of 21 or upwards. That has not been found to be a sufficient safeguard. Some hon. Members may remember a very serious accident that took place at Dudley Port, Staffordshire, in March of last year, known as the Tipton explosion. A number of young girls were employed in breaking down ammunition. Proper precautions were not taken, several of the girls lost their lives, and the occupier of the factory was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to a term of penal servitude. A great deal of feeling was aroused and a good many questions were asked in the House, and the Home Secretary promised to do his best to place further restrictions on the employment of young persons.
Clause 2 of this Bill merely carries out the promise then made. It extends the age from 16 to 18. No young person under 18 is to be allowed to work in any of these danger buildings unless under the supervision of a person who is of age, and it goes further still, and says no young person under 16 shall work in any danger building whatsoever, with the exception of certain non-dangerous processes, which are to be specified by Order. Finally, under the old Act the couple of Sections, which deal with penalties only, inflict a penalty of 2s. for every pound of explosive that is improperly kept. It is evident that that is really quite inadequate. A person keeping, say, a box of 100 detonators or a few pounds of very high explosive, which may give rise to a very serious accident indeed, is only to be fined a few shillings. The Bill remedies that and increases the penalty to a fine of the maximum amount
under the old Act or £100, whichever is the greater. I think everyone will agree that that is a more adequate penalty than the very small nominal penalty which might in most serious cases have been imposed under the old Act. That is the whole of the Bill. I believe it carries out the wishes of the House, which were very strongly expressed when that very serious accident took place last year, and I hope the House will give it a Second Reading.

Orders of the Day — FORESTRY (TRANSFER OF WOODS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Boyd-Carpenter): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
9.0 P.M.
I hope this small and short Bill may have the happy fate of that which has been moved by my hon. Friend, because I think I can equally say, as he did, that this is entirely a non-controversial Bill. It is one to transfer to the Forestry Commission, which was set up by the Forestry Act of 1919, all those woods and forests which are at present under the management of the Commissioner of Woods. It is proposed to transfer them en bloc, because it is considered it would be wiser and more economical so to transfer them rather than to have a gradual and piecemeal transfer with the necessary onerous correspondence. It also proposes to transfer under Clause 2 all the operations in connection with forestry which hitherto have been carried on by the Development Commissioners under the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, that is to say, all those grants which have hitherto been devoted under that Act to the improvement of forestry, knowledge of afforestation, and research. So that in one body, the Forestry Commissioners, eight in number, there shall be unity of control and, as it is hoped, considerable economies. It also puts in a reservation in Clause 1 (2) and in the Schedule to protect the amenities and the rights of the people of the country as regards some of those woods and forests
which are to be so transferred. For instance, it protects the New Forest, which is represented, and rightly so, as one of our national playgrounds. Therefore there can be no interference there. Equally, there can be no interference with the ordinary common rights, although under the Bill these woods may be transferred to the Forestry Commission. These special protective conditions are put in the Bill so that there can be no apprehension on the part of those who are not unnaturally interested in the preservation of these rights and in seeing that the rights in themselves are being infringed.
There is another Clause which provides for the valuation of these portions of the Crown Lands and the Crown Woods and Forests by the Commissioners of Woods, so that in the event of the hereditary revenues of the Crown ever reverting to the Crown personally, the Crown's rights should be so safeguarded.
There is a Clause to alter, if it is considered necessary, the title of the Commissioners of Woods, in so far as their functions as affecting woods and forests are transferred to the Forestry Commission, because there are certain other duties pertaining to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests than those necessarily included in the transfer of these particular lands.
It is only right to say that if this Bill passes, 70,000 acres will be transferred. They exist in various parts of the country. There is the New Forest, the Forest of Dean, the Tintern Forest in Monmouthshire, Inverleven in Scotland, and several others, like the outlying woods of Windsor Great Forest, but they are too numerous to enumerate here.
There is one other Clause which is of some measure of interest. It suggests that Members of Parliament who, under the Acts of 1782 and 1801, are debarred from taking part in the participation of grants shall, unless they are Forestry Commissioners, be allowed that privilege. It is a small matter, but it is one of historical interest and, therefore, I mention it. Then there is one other Clause which deals with the conditions under grants given under the 1919 Act. Again I think it is a small matter, but it is my duty to mention it. Under the Forestry Act of 1919, all grants for the purpose of encouraging afforestation and the grow-
ing of trees were given on the understanding that those to whom the grants were accorded, if they made a profit exceeding 4 per cent. compound interest return to the Exchequer—now, of course, it will be the Forestry Commission—any excess of those profits on exactly similar terms—4 per cent. compound interest. It was found after the 1919 Act was passed that the keeping of these accounts was not only onerous but extremely complicated and, as there was not the slightest possibility of any such profits accruing, in view of the fact that the profits could not accrue until the trees had been grown and felled 50 years hence, it was felt that the keeping of the accounts was unnecessary. Therefore, the subsequent Forestry Act of 1921 suspended the accounts for six months for that reason. It is now proposed in this Bill that they should be suspended altogether for the time being in view of the fact that there is nothing to come in for many years, and that the keeping of the accounts are an hindrance to the parties concerned and constitute a considerable waste of time.
I recommend the Bill with great humility to the House for Second Reading because it is a unifying and codifying Bill which will do some good. Possibly it will make things clearer by putting into the hands of one authority these very many subjects which it is just as well one representative authority should consider.
There is one further point, which is a minor point, and does not in itself affect the Bill. It is dealt with in Clause 6 and relates to the pension of a salaried Forestry Commissioner. There are only two Forestry Commissioners who are paid, but it might happen that in due course the Government of the day might consider it necessary to appoint a civil servant to be a Forestry Commissioner. If that civil servant retired from the office of Forestry Commissioner on the expiration of his term of office, while under the age of 60 years, he might find himself in a worse position in regard to pension because he had been selected to serve on the Forestry Commission. Therefore, it is proposed in Clause 6 that he, having been so appointed, should not be penalised but should be entitled to draw the pension which had accrued to him as a Forestry Commissioner rather than as a civil
servant. I hope that this Bill will meet with general approval, as it is non-controversial.

Mr. SULLIVAN: May I ask a question?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Hope): I am afraid the hon. Member is too late.

Orders of the Day — MINES (WORKING FACILITIES AND SUPPORT) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Lieut.-Colonel Lane-Fox): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
One of the duties of the Secretary for Mines, which was laid down by Statute, was to secure the most effective development of the mineral resources of the United Kingdom, and it is in pursuance of that duty that I move the Second Reading of this Bill. The Bill is in no sense sensational. I hope it will be a thoroughly useful Bill. It represents a very valuable and useful agreement between conflicting interests, and it has taken a long time to arrive at the agreement. The intention is to release large quantities of minerals which are now, for various reasons, unworkable, and which in the national interests should be worked. The question of the various minerals which are prevented through various circumstances from being worked has been the subject of a series of recommendations by various Commissions and Committees for a long time past, and on the recommendations of these Commissions and Committees the present Bill is mainly founded. I need not go back to the Royal Commission of 30 years ago, but I will refer to the more recent Coal Conservation Committee, presided over by Lord Haldane, which reported in 1918, and which very clearly described the class of case with which Clause I of the Bill is intended to deal. The Committee say in their Report:
Cases have been brought to our attention where considerable quantities of coal (in one case amounting to 2,000,000 tons) will be permanently lost unless it is worked by the lessees of the adjoining workings; but the difficulties of obtaining a lease are
at present practically insuperable. Either the land belongs to a large number of small proprietors in a town, or to joint owners who cannot agree amongst themselves, or the owner cannot be found, or refuses to treat, or asks prohibitive terms, or is unable to make a title; and for one reason or another the coal remains unworked.
They then proceed to suggest various remedies which are in the nature of the remedies which this Bill suggests. The Acquisition and Valuation of Land Committee in 1919 also dealt with the subject, under the Chairmanship of the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir Leslie Scott), who was Solicitor-General in the last Government. That Committee recommended that these minerals should be made workable and that there should be compulsory reference of cases to a sanctioning authority, which they suggested should be set up, that if possible a working agreement should be arrived at between the various interests involved, and that a Bill in that direction should be framed. On these lines we hope to proceed by this Bill. The Departmental Committee on the Non-Ferrous Mining Industry, presided over by the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Betterton), who is now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, made similar recommendations. They recommended that cases of this kind should be referred to the Mines Department, with the right of appeal to an impartial tribunal.
Prolonged negotiations have taken place and at last an agreement has been reached between all the various parties on the lines suggested by the Committee presided over by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool. I hope the House will allow the Bill to pass its Second Reading to-night, because it represents an agreement of all parties. While we have all the parties in agreement I hope we shall avail ourselves of the opportunity of settling matters which are rather controversial, possibly over small points, but points which are vital to the mining industry. Part I of the Bill deals with the general questions of various obstructions to the working of the minerals, which we propose to refer to the Railway and Canal Commission to decide. There are various reasons why the Railway and Canal Commission has been selected as the proper authority for deciding cases of this sort in dispute. The Railway and Canal Com-
mission was set up originally under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888; two Commissioners were appointed, one experienced in railway matters, also two ex officio Commissioners, Judges of the Superior Court. One judge representing England is Mr. Justice Lush, and the other Judge representing Scotland is Lord MacKenzie, both of whose names carry with them weight which will justify the House in selecting this body for the purpose.
This Commission has the duty of dealing with disputes, in which railway and canal companies are concerned, and also with disputes between such companies themselves. They have had a great many questions of railway rates, traffic, etc., which have passed partially now into the hands of the Railway Rates Tribunal. Therefore the Commission have a certain amount of spare time, which we propose should be employed in dealing with the cases that are to be put before them by this Bill. They have also to decide certain questions under the Acquisition of Land Act. Generally, their work and experience make them eminently suitable for dealing with the class of case which we propose to bring before them. There is an additional advantage in selecting this body. It is not a costly matter. It is not a matter of setting up a new body of officials. We employ an existing authority and there is no new expense involved. In addition, they consist of gentlemen who are in every way suitable for dealing with this sort of work, and they are willing to undertake the duties. Part II of the Bill is less general, but, at the same time, very important. It deals with the question of minerals under or adjacent to railways which are at present unworkable.
I will now go into the Bill in some detail. Clauses 1, 2 and 3 specify certain rights which are necessary for the better working of minerals which may be applied for and secured by the machinery which we set up. Clause 1 deals with cases where the consent of two or more persons, as in the case of copyhold, is required, or where the minerals are in such small parcels that they cannot be worked by themselves. Any person having an interest in them or in adjacent minerals may be given the right to work them, without consent of
persons whose consent cannot be obtained and subject to certain safeguards contained in the Bill. Clause 2 deals with the question of the adjustment of boundaries. We all know that in many cases there are awkward and inconvenient boundaries between the areas of various pits and very often, owing to the difficulty of getting the consent of the lessor, minerals are left unworked. It proposes that rights should be obtained by the consent of persons working adjoining mines without obtaining the consent of the lessor.
Clause 3 deals with the question of ancillary rights which are necessary to facilitate in other ways the working of minerals. For instance, a right to let down the surface, a right of air-way, shaft-way or wayleave for access to or conveyance of minerals and for the ventilation or drainage of the mines, a right to construct such ancillary works as spoil banks, coke ovens, brickworks and workmen's dwellings. Also a right to get water and get rid of water. The following Clauses set up the machinery by which we propose that these rights should be granted, and the granting of these rights is limited by Clause 4 to cases where such rights cannot be obtained by agreement owing to the number of persons involved, or owing to their being unreasonable or owing to their being unobtainable for various reasons.
I am afraid that this is a very technical and rather dull subject. It is provided that persons who are qualified to obtain these rights may apply to the Board of Trade, and if the Board of Trade—I suppose it will mean the Mines Department—are satisfied that there is a primâ facie case, they shall refer it to the Railway and Canal Commission for settlement. The Railway and Canal Commission may grant the rights applied for if they are in the national interest, and if the Commission considers that they are generally expedient and subject to such conditions as to compensation or otherwise as they may make. For instance, in the case of an application to let down a surface the Commission shall consider the relative value of the buildings or any other works on the surface, and the prospective importance of avoiding surface damage compared with the value of the minerals. They shall also consider the need of protection from flooding from one mine into
another. Clause 8 authorises persons requiring support to apply for restrictions on mining, and there again if the relative value of the buildings or works compares favourably against the value of the minerals which might be obtained, then it will be for the Commission to settle whether such restrictions should be granted and also the terms of compensation. That, as briefly as I can put it, is a description of Part I of the Bill.
Part II deals with a particular branch of the case, in which minerals are withheld from being worked. It modifies and alters the mining code in the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845, but only in respect of railways. It does not modify it in respect to the rights which local authorities have, for instance, rights in connection with sewage works, waterworks, and other works of that kind. It deals entirely with minerals which lie under or are adjacent to railways. Under the Mining Code, as it exists, railways can prevent the working of minerals under the surface 40 yards on each side of the railway. But they are bound to pay the full value of the mineral so required to be left unworked. If they do not pay such compensation the mineral can be worked and they are liable to the whole damage done to the surface by the working of that coal. In the case of modern mines, the great depth renders the 40 yards totally inadequate to protect them from underground workings, and the railway companies in consequence brought the case before the Courts, and by the well-known decision in the Howley Park case in 1912, the position was completely altered, and the railway companies got a judgment which asserted their common law right to prohibit by injunction for an indefinite distance the working of minerals outside the 40 yards, if there was liability to damage the railway, and they got that right, without having to pay any compensation, and they also had the right to recover the whole cost of any damage done through such working from the mine-owner.
That, of course, entirely altered the position. Large areas of minerals remained sterile because mineowners were not willing to take the risk of becoming liable for the very large costs and damages that might be thrown upon them.
A certain number of private agreements were made, but it will be obvious to the House that the position could not be fully and thoroughly dealt with merely by private agreements. This Bill is now intended, if it passes, to give statutory form to a general form of agreement, which has been entered into by the parties concerned, and which will apply to the whole country. It will, I hope, have the effect of releasing most, if not all, of the coal at present held up unnecessarily and not worked. I hesitate to attempt to weary the House with the elaborate details of a very complicated agreement. The agreement is very complicated, but I am sure it is thoroughly understood by the very keen business men entering into it, and the House can rest assured that they will look very thoroughly after all the interests concerned.
I will try to sketch the general effect without wearying the House with much detail. The general effect of this agreement is roughly this. While the railways give up their common law right of support over an indefinite distance, given to them by the Howley Park judgment, they agree to pay limited compensation where coal is sterilised by their requiring that it should not be worked in the interests of their railways, in certain proportions which I am not going into now. The mining interests, on the other hand, agree to extend the statutory area of support beyond 40 yards to a distance equal to half the depth of the seam worked, which, of course, means that if you are working a seam of 600 yards in depth the area of protection which this provision would imply would be 300 yards on either side. In addition to that, they agree to pay a limited share of the cost of repairs to the surface necessitated by workings under the new statutory area, in varied proportions, and to forego the right they previously had of receiving the whole cost of driving through the coal sterilised under the railways.
There was one point which had not been agreed upon when the Bill came before the House of Lords. That was the point which existed between the royalty and the mineowners. It was agreed that in leases before the Howley Park judgment the royalty owners should contribute to the cost of making good the damage to the railways and should agree to certain deductions being made from the royalties. As regards leases made after the Bill
passes, obviously arrangements can be made in view of the provisions of the Bill. The point in dispute, however, was in regard to the leases made after the Howley Park judgment and before the Bill passes into law, in which there were no express conditions as to whether such deductions should be made or not. The Bill states—and by a free vote, in which no Government Whips were put on in the other place, this provision of the Bill was supported—that where there is no definite provision in the lease against such contributions being paid they shall be paid. I think when that matter is thought out it will be seen that there is no actual breach of contract involved, and that it is a perfectly fair and reasonable thing. In the Bill, Scotland is excluded.

Mr. LAWSON: Look at all the notes I have made!

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: If the copious notes to which the hon. Member refers were made in order to deal with the hardship of excluding Scotland, I am afraid that what I am about to say may deprive some hon. Gentlemen of the pleasure of making a speech to the House. I am hoping, in view of arrangements since made, that I shall be able to move an Amendment in Committee to include Scotland under the very excellent arrangements which I trust that this Bill will include.
It is exceedingly gratifying to me to find that, in quarters with which I am not personally always in agreement, there is apparently whole-hearted support of the provisions of this Measure. I welcome that, and I hope we shall find the value of it when the Bill goes into Committee. I hope the House will take the opportunity of giving statutory form to the agreement which this Bill involves. A great many hon. Members opposite will probably say that the Bill does not go far enough. It does not deal with the whole question of subsidence, and those hon. Members desiring nationalisation will not find it in the Bill. It does not pretend to go as far as many of them would like. It does not pretend to grant nationalisation, but that is no reason for wrecking very useful reforms which are badly needed and are asked for.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I would point out to the hon. and
gallant Gentleman that to refer to nationalisation dangerously enlarges the scope of the discussion.

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: You have ruled, Sir, that no reference must be made to those matters, and in view of your decision I hope that will be the case. If that be so, it is quite unnecessary for me to say more than this, that this is a very innocent little Bill, and does not pretend to go into dangerous quarters. I would plead for the Bill on that ground. In view of the fact that it represents an agreement between interests which have been for long conflicting, in the interests of the railway companies, the mine owners, and the royalty owners; and in view of the fact that it does represent an agreement on the part of conflicting authorities to alter the law by agreement, I think the House, in the interests of peace, and certainly in the interests of the general working of minerals in this country, ought to grant it a Second Reading. Those hon. Members who are interested in minerals—not, perhaps, the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury)—

Mr. LANSBURY: I am interested in consuming them.

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: Then it is obviously to the interests of the electors of Bow and Bromley that coal should be made cheaper.

Mr. LANSBURY: Not while you are giving it to the royalty owners.

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: Any agreement to remove obstacles and difficulties in the way of working minerals must tend to the general advantage of everyone concerned. I commend it to the House, and I am quite sure, after the ruling of Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we shall not be allowed to encroach on dangerous subjects. I commend the Bill as a measure of agreement, which has taken a long time to arrive at, and which I hope the House will support.

Mr. WALSH: I think every hon. Member will congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the explicit statement he has made upon a Bill which, after all, is a very complicated one. He spoke of an agreement having been arrived at among all the parties affected. I am not at all sure as to the accuracy of that
statement. In regard to Clause 8, which deals with restrictions on working minerals required for support, one would like to know whether the consent of the houseowners or the tenants, in those tens of thousands of cases where subsidence on an extensive scale has taken place, and where property has been almost completely destroyed, has been obtained to it. Under Clause 9 compensation is purported to be given. I do not know whether tenants or owners have been consulted upon that Clause. The hon. Gentleman in his statement seemed to imply that only three sets of people were interested, namely, the mineowner or the working owner of the mineral, the royalty owner, and the railway companies. They seem to be the only parties that stood prominently in the hon. Gentleman's mind. I am sure that he will admit, probably in Committee, that there are much more substantial interests to be considered than are represented by those three parties. As to the general provisions of the Bill most hon. Members will be agreed. We are aware of the report of the Coal Conservancy Committee. We are also aware of the valuable evidence taken and work done by the Committee over which the right hon. Member for the Exchange Division presided, and to which he gave devoted labour.
As to the saving to the nation of the valuable asset represented by tens of millions of tons of coal in the effective working of the barriers, we are also agreed. That has been spoken about for 40 years by the party with which I am associated. It is wonderful how, after long lapses of time, the voice in the wilderness begins to justify itself. We were standing on tubs 40 years ago pointing out that here were most valuable assets being completely lost because the interests of the individual overrode the interests of the nation. Time after time that doctrine was preached. Time after time we were told, "Yah, that is Socialism. You are a Bolshevist. You have no regard for the interests of property and of the individual owner. You are going to confiscate." The individual may say, "This coal belongs to me." There are those who have bought their rights of ownership. They will say,
"I am entitled to act in my own private interest. I bought and paid for this property. I have, therefore, a right to work it as it seems to me best. I am going to cultivate futures. The mining industry is in a state of great prosperity and it can go on to greater prosperity, and then, when I can realise a very much higher value, I am prepared to work this coal." That has been held to be the most perfect conservatism—that every individual had a right to protect his property in that way, and to wait until he could advance its value. Indeed, the man who argued on those lines has been held to be the kind of man on whom the prosperity of the nation has been based. Now we are told, "Oh, no. If two people holding adjoining mineral properties desire to work those properties, and are prevented from so doing by a third party holding a small parcel, that third party's right is to be overridden."
It is not for us to complain, but it is for hon. Members opposite to say whether the reproaches thrown at us in the past, of Socialism, confiscation, and interference with individual rights, have been justified. We think this change ought to have been made long ago, and we stated so long ago. In respect to Clauses 8 and 9, I would ask the Secretary for Mines whether there have been any attempts made to secure the adherence of cottage property owners in respect of the restrictions upon the working of minerals and compensation to be paid when such property is in danger of being destroyed. This is germane to the present discussion, because in 1919, in the first Session of the new Parliament, a promise was made by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Home Secretary, that a Bill would be introduced giving compensation for mining subsidences. It is true that we carried the Second Reading in this House and that a Committee was set up, but the Government refused to give us facilities in the Committee and even refused to give us an official reporter, and, of course, under such conditions no progress was possible. That was five years ago. From that day to this there has not been the slightest pretence of dealing with the matter. I am sure that the interests of tens of thousands of cottage owners, who in many cases have found their life savings destroyed, are greater than the interests of the royalty owners, and are certainly more insistent and
clamant. I did not hear from the hon. Gentleman that any attempt had been made to come to a satisfactory arrangement with them.
On one of the earlier Clauses of the Bill I want to ask a question. Clause 4 states:
Neither the right to work minerals nor an ancillary right shall be granted under this Act unless it is shown that it is not reasonably practicable to obtain the rights in question by private arrangement for any of the following reasons—
I will not quote the first two reasons, but the third reason reads in this way, and it seems to me to be very remarkable—
That the persons from whom the right must be obtained, or any of them, have not the necessary powers of disposition whether by reason of defect in title, legal disability or otherwise;
We start out by stating there are persons from whom the right must be obtained, and yet, by a later implication, we say there are no persons possessed of such a right. When people are desirous of working coal, for the ownership of which, or the disposition of which, no legal right exists, who is going to confer power? [An HON. MEMBER: "The Railways and Canals Commission."] The Railways and Canals Commission can only act when the legal right exists to work the coal, but here there is by implication a legal disability. There is also by statement a defect in title. Let us presume there is a person who claims ownership of a coal area. Later on, when those desirous of working the coal, which he claims to own, come to probe the matter, they find he does not really own it, that there is a defect in title, that he is suffering from legal disability or that he has not the necessary power of disposition. Who then becomes the owner? Who has the authority to confer the right to work the coal, and where is that authority derived from? I fail, on looking through the Bill, to find any satisfactory answer to that question. One would say that the nation ought to possess the coal for which no individual has either the necessary power of disposition or the legal title. One would say in that case that ownership ought to revert to the people themselves. This is a complicated Measure of 84 or 85 Clauses.

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: In reference to the manner in which the Clauses are numbered, might I point out that all
of those highly numbered Clauses come within Clause 15 of the Bill—which effects an amendment of the Mines Act—and are simply quotations?

Mr. WALSH: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I had not noticed the gaps between one number and another. In any case the Bill is one on which, as far as its main purposes are concerned, we are all broadly agreed. It contains a good many points of contention which will have to be thoroughly thrashed out in Committee. I am sure the closer and, in many cases, more technical knowledge possessed by several hon. Members will enable them to see in Committee a great many points requiring adjustment. It incorporates many principles for which we have been contending for nearly half a century and to that extent we thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for it. So far as those points upon which there may be common agreement are concerned, we shall facilitate the progress of the Bill, but we withhold to ourselves the right to raise in Committee all those other points which we think deserving of attention.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: With the last speaker, I am inclined to agree that the Bill contains some very good provisions and some very good principles which, if expanded to their fullest extent, would confer many benefits, not only on the mineowners, but also on the miners and consumers. At the same time one must notice the limitations of the Bill. One cannot help remarking that if the benefits which we expect to be derived from it are going to be so comprehensive, what would be the benefit if the whole of the barriers preventing the quick exploitation, in the most scientific sense, of the natural resources of this country were removed? The hon and gallant Gentleman has suggested that all the parties concerned have mutually agreed upon a set of principles on which they can work. As regards removing the barrier which confronts colliery companies about to develop large areas, where a lot of small owners of land refuse to sell their portions, one can readily see that the powers conferred on the Board of Trade or the Commission which will finally determine these appeals will certainly facilitate the working of coal areas, and to that extent good is bound to result. With regard to the boundaries also, one can see that not
only will some of the recommendations of the Coal Conservation Committee actually be put into operation, but that we shall be getting better results from the value of our own natural resources than we get al the moment, with all these 3,300 boundaries.
With regard to Clause 3, dealing with ancillary rights, I am fairly pleased to see that powers are going to be conferred on the Commission to make it possible for colliery companies, when they have purchased rights, not only to work the coal but to make adequate arrangements for the people who will be the producers of the coal, so far as housing is concerned. I have one particular case in mind, where, when a large coal area was purchased, one of the clauses in the agreement was to the effect that no house should be erected within a mile of the pit top. That compels men to-day to walk some two or three miles to their work. I am not sure that it is not advisable that the men should live a fairly long way from the mine, provided travelling facilities are available for them, but when there are no means of transport and the men, because of lack of housing accommodation, are compelled to walk two, three or four miles to work, you may be sure absenteeism in inclement weather will be much larger than it would be in normal circumstances. For that reason alone, at least, I am pleased that joint efforts have been made for the purpose of reaching common ground where arrangements can be made not only for producing the coal in the most efficient way, but for making ample provision for all the people who are about to be the producers.
One important matter arising out of this Bill is the question of subsidence, and here we find, as the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) aptly put the case, that while subsidence will be dealt with from the point of view of the railway company, no provision is being made at all for the thousand and one people who have dwellings and other erections above ground, and one feels that alongside of this Bill the Government ought to have expressed their willingness to give effect to the promise they gave some two years ago that they would be introducing a Bill dealing with subsidence entirely on their own initiative. I think these three very large bodies, the owners of the land, the owners of the railways, and the
mineowners, ought to make arrangements whereby, when subsidence takes place and dwellings, municipal offices, and public buildings generally are let down, adequate compensation ought to be made, so that they can be kept in a decent state of repair.
One notices also that there is an absence from this Bill of almost every recommendation that was made in 1919, and it is rather a sad commentary upon the people who are responsible for promoting this Bill that, after all the evidence that has been submitted, and after all the justification that has been given for a co-operative effort in these national undertakings, royalty owners in the future are apparently as determined to get their pound of flesh as they have been in the past. The only security that we are going to have is that in future it may be that the working of the coal seams will be facilitated by this Bill, but, from the point of view of compensation, the royalty owners are going to be in just the same position as, and perhaps in a better position in the future than, they have been in the past. The Board of Trade, or the Railway and Canal Commissioners, in 50 per cent. of the cases, are the same people who own land, mines, and railways, and I am rather of the opinion that we shall find, when we come to work this Bill, that we are going to be handing over to a comparatively few people the rights and privileges that ought to belong to the whole community.
10.0 P.M.
However, if by the working of this Bill we can co-ordinate our efforts and justify the plea that has been made for so long by Members who now sit on these benches, one can feel that we are taking a step in the right direction and that the time will not be far distant when we shall not be trimming about with Bills of this description, that touch only the fringe of the question, but that we shall make up our minds as a nation that if the land, either on the surface or below ground, is required to serve a national purpose, there shall be only one body to whom we should have to appeal, namely, the Government of the day. Likewise with the coal below ground or the railways above, all these things are necessary for the life of the nation, and when we want either to produce coal or to use the railways, the Government of the nation ought to be the only body to whom we ought to
have to appeal. If these principles can be first of all laid down under the terms of this Bill, with, perhaps, many modifications in Committee, and we can see the working possibilities of it, I hope the time will not be far distant when we shall extend it on the lines recommended by the Sankey Commission and do in reality what we contemplate doing in a very small way in this Bill.

Mr. BATEY: The Secretary for Mines, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, described it as an innocent little Bill, but it is not so little when we see that there are 29 pages in the Bill, and it is certainly not so innocent to the miners engaged in the coal trade of this country. I am at a loss to understand why the Secretary for Mines should be moving the Second Reading of the Bill, and I am at a greater loss to understand why the Government should be providing time for its Second Reading, especially remembering the fact that there are now ready other two Bills dealing with these questions, and if one has got to state what one's impression really is, it seems that the Government is backing this Bill to-night simply to forestall the two Bills dealing with this subject that are already standing in the names of Members of the Labour party.
Independent of the question of compensation, it seems to me that this Bill has two main objects. One is to confer the right to facilitate the working of coal. Those of us who have been connected with the mining industry agree with getting all the barriers removed out of the coal mines that it is possible to remove. We do not believe in leaving in any barriers, but what we cannot understand is why the House of Lords and those responsible for this Bill should say that the people to confer the right to facilitate the working of coal should be the Railway and Canal Commissioners. One could have understood them saying that if we had no Department of Mines, but now that we have a Department of Mines my own personal opinion is that no outside body should be allowed to interfere with the working of coal and that everything in connection with the working of coal should be in the hands of that Department. The second object at which this Bill seems to aim is to impose restrictions on the working of coal for the support of railways, buildings, and works.
No one can argue against the support for railways, but this Bill goes to the extent of insisting upon coal being left for intended works, and therefore we argue that this Bill goes much further than there is any need for it to do. In addition, it not only aims at having coal left for the support of railways, but it goes a step further and says that the Railway and Canal Commissioners shall have the power to determine what shall be the system of working. That may mean far more than appears on the surface, because a coal mine may be worked by a certain system of working, and if they have got power, simply because of some intended works, to stop that system of working, it will impose on that colliery an additional expense.
I was rather sorry to hear the Secretary for Mines say that he intended to move in Committee an Amendment to the Clause which exempts Scotland from Part II of the Bill. If I may give advice to the Secretary for Mines, it would be not to move an Amendment to remove the exemption of Scotland, but to move an Amendment to exempt England, Wales and Scotland from Part II. There is a paragraph in Clause 15 to which I want to refer. At the foot of page 12 it reads:
The compensation payable to the royalty owners shall be based on the amount which would have been received from time to time by way of royalty in respect of the specified minerals if they had been worked out in the ordinary course.
We take a very strong objection to paying royalty owners even for the coal which has been worked out, and we object even more strongly to paying them for coal which would have been worked out. In the County of Durham where I come from we pay the royalty owners £1,000,000 a year. [HON. MEMBERS: "A million and a quarter."] My hon. Friends say it is £1,250,000. Let it be the lesser figure. I say it is too much to pay to royalty owners at a time when thousands of men are starving. We disagree with this Clause. Personally I am sorry the Labour Members have not taken the step of moving that this Bill be read this day six months.
This Clause, along with the Clause I have already mentioned, allowing the Railway and Canal Commissioners to come in, are dangerous Clauses. There is another provision to which I want to
draw the attention of the House. On the top of page 15 it says:
Provided that in ascertaining such aggregate sums as aforesaid minerals gotten more than six years before the date on which a contribution shall have been demanded by a company under this Section shall not be reckoned.
That provision seems to suggest that we are to have some more retrospective legislation to go back for the last six years, and wherever there is a possibility of a claim during the last six years, the mines will have to pay that compensation. That, too, is a Clause to which one takes very strong objection. We disagreed with retrospective legislation in the Rents Bill and we object to it as strongly here. The Secretary for Mines has been referring to the royalty-owner, the mine-owner and the railway companies, but I want him to remember that this question may not affect the coal-owner so much as it affects the coal miner. This Bill will add to the cost of working the coal mines, while we want to cheapen the cost as much as possible. When you add to the cost of working the coal mines, it is not the coal-owners but the miners who suffer. As was said in this House the other day, the miner to-day has to pay 83 per cent. of the cost against the owners' 17 per cent. The coal-owner has an advantage that the miners have not got. The coal-owner may be also at the same time a director or a shareholder of a railway company, so that when he is paying compensation to the railway company he may be losing as a mine-owner but he is benefiting as a shareholder of the railway company. One would have wished that this Bill had been left over till the House had had an opportunity of considering the Miners' Federation Bill for the nationalisation of the coal mines. It seems to me that the object of this Bill being rushed before the House now is simply to forestall the Miners' Federation in their Nationalisation Bill.

Sir LESLIE SCOTT: As the Chairman of the Committee which made the primary Report on which this Bill is founded, perhaps the House will allow me to express the thanks of that Committee to the Secretary for Mines and to the hon. Member for the Ince Division of Lancashire (Mr. S. Walsh) for the kind words that fell from their lips regarding the work of that Committee. The
Government ought to be pleased with the reception which this Bill, so truly Tory and Conservative as it is, has received from the official spokesman of His Majesty's Opposition. As Chairman of that Committee, I can only say that it was a matter of great regret to the Committee that the hon. Member for the Ince Division, who at my special request was made a member of that Committee, was not able to serve throughout its sittings. We had looked forward to obtaining much assistance from him, and we did in the end, I believe, try our best to produce an entirely non-party, non-political Report just as if he also had been a member of the Committee, trying, with others of us who were Conservatives, to remove some of the very real difficulties found to-day in the working of the mineral resources of this country. In approaching this Bill, I think it is essential to realise that the Bill is an attempt to remove certain definite defects found in practice, and that it is not a very ambitious Measure attempting in any way to make a revolution in the existing system under which the minerals of this country are worked. I appreciate and candidly admit that, from the point of view of many hon. Members opposite who do want a very drastic change in our system, some disappointment with the Bill may be felt, but if we are to approach it as being what it is, a definite attempt to deal with practical difficulties in a practical, broad-minded and liberal-minded way, then I venture to think that the Bill will be recognised as deserving of the general support given to it by the hon. Member for the Ince Division, speaking officially for the party which he represents.
On the general principles of the Bill, it is perhaps not without its use to remember certain words or encomiums on the Bill uttered by Sir Richard Redmayne, on an occasion when the Report of my Committee, on which the Bill is largely founded, was under discussion at the Surveyors' Institute. Following the ruling of Mr. Deputy-Speaker just now, that no question of broad policy like nationalisation will be in order here, and bearing in mind that by making a quotation I am not trespassing upon that ruling, I think it is worth while reading a short passage from the speech of Sir Richard Redmayne. The House will remember that Sir Richard Redmayne sat
upon the Sankey Commission all through, and is known to have expressed strong views in favour of nationalisation, and to have taken what would be described as a very forward, and I would call, even a very revolutionary, line in relation to this matter. After referring to his own view about nationalisation, he said:
He desired to take the present opportunity of paying his meed of praise to Mr. Leslie Scott and the very able gentlemen who had served under him for the work the Committee had accomplished. He had studied the Report with care, and he had come to the conclusion that it was the only scheme short of nationalisation of minerals which would satisfactorily solve the problem. There were imperfections in it, of course.—there were spots on the sun, he believed—but they were slight in comparison with the advantages of the main scheme which that Committee had formulated.
I do not say that this Bill contains in its provisions the whole of the proposals of my Committee. It does not do so. But, so far as it goes, it adopts the most important of those proposals, and for those reasons I ask the House to bear in mind, in considering Part I, that the proposals put forward are proposals that have been discussed with very great care and fullness by a great number of people who are really familiar with the working of our mines. With that, I say nothing more upon Part of the Bill. As regards Part II, the case which has to be put forward is a very definite one, one which really makes amendment of Part II exceedingly undesirable in principle. The position, which has been very accurately stated by the Secretary for Mines, is, that under the old Act of 1845, a provision was made dealing with coal within 40 yards of the railway, a provision accepted by Parliament in that day, because in the then state of technical knowledge of mining engineering, it was believed that if you allowed 40 yards you would be quite safe, and that mining outside the 40 yards limit, would do no harm, coupled with a belief, not limited to Parliament but shared in those days by judges, that if you took away the coal, you could substitute artificial means to prevent subsidence. We now know that under the ordinary methods of mining in this country, without hydraulic packing, subsidence is certain to follow, and, consequently, subsidence has occurred at a very much great distance than 40 yards, particularly with the
deeper mines. The deeper you go the further the subsidence reaches on the surface. The result is, that subsidence can be caused 120 or 150 yards or even further away.
The House of Lords decided that the common law right of absolute support of the surface attached to coal beyond the 40 yards' limit. It was pointed out by my Committee that the effect of that decision was to sterilise the whole of the coal lying outside that limit, so that it could not be touched without the consent of the railway companies. That being the position, and the nation being faced with the possibility of great loss unless in every individual case an agreement was come to between the owners and the railway companies, it was felt that some means must be found to meet the case; and so we suggested that certain members of the Committee representing the railway companies, and certain others representing the colliery owners, should get their heads together and get people representing the royalty owners and try to come to an agreement which would be made general by legislation. That attempt most fortunately succeeded. We got that agreement as between those two parties, and subsequently with the other party that is particularly popular with hon. Members on the benches opposite—I refer to the royalty owners. They were also brought in. Why? Because we were dealing with things as they are, and trying to get an agreement which will help us out of present difficulties.
They came in and, on terms, agreed to accept certain responsibilities, and it was agreed also that they should receive certain compensation. The agreement contained in Clause 15 of the Bill is really almost like a treaty made between the interests affected, after prodigious discussion that has lasted from 1919—when my Committee reported almost continuously until last autumn, when agreement was finally reached between the three parties as to what was a fair distribution of the liabilities on the one hand and the compensating advantages on the other. They think it is fair. It is an extraordinarily complicated agreement. I challenge any Member of the House to understand it without prolonged work, even the lawyers; and I would ask the House in Committee to remember that it is
essentially an agreement between those parties, and that if we are going to alter one Clause, we upset the balance of the agreement in ways we do not understand, and that, therefore, primâ facie it is proper to take it as an agreement and swallow it whole. Hon. Members may say: "We hate the royalty owner, but we want to get this Bill read; therefore we will pass this agreement." The Bill is without prejudice to any future legislation of a wider kind. To alter it, is to destroy it as an agreement, and, therefore, run the risk of failing to get an agreement between those parties, and also failing to carry an agreed Measure.
There is only one other point I should like to make. A certain amount has been said upon the subject of support—a subject which as we all know is one of very great difficulty. The report of my Committee contained much wider proposals than those that are imported into the Bill. So far as they go, I venture to think those proposals are thoroughly sound. The theory of them is this: that as with every Order which the Railway and Canal Commission is given power to make, so in regard to orders as to support, the Order is to be made on such terms and conditions as the Commission think fair. The burden is not to be put on one side, and the privileges are not to be given entirely to the other side. What I suggest is that the proposals about support are reasonable as far as they go, and that therefore without prejudice to dealing with this difficult question hereafter, after further investigation in other ways, we should accept these proposals as a small instalment which is good as far as it reaches.

Mr. LAWSON: The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken very tactfully and like a good lawyer took the good things which the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh) had said in favour of the Bill, but forgot to deal with the other points of objection which the same hon. Member raised. Let me remind the House of one of them. It is a fact that in this Bill there is no provision whatever for compensation for subsidence to a workman whose house is damaged by that subsidence. I want the House, not as representatives of one party or another, but as representatives of their constituents, to take note of this fact. Many hon. Members like myself receive from
time to time memorials from workmen householders complaining that the coal is taken from underneath their houses without their consent, and they are never consulted at all, and that coal, having been taken away in that way, they have absolutely no right of appeal for compensation for subsidence. That is getting more and more the fashion throughout this country, and there is not a single word about that matter in this Bill. I want to put the other side which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). This is how we treat landowners and private interests. In Clause 15, the provision as to Section 78A, Sub-section (1), paragraph (iii), states that:
The compensation payable to the royalty owner shall be based on the amount which would have been received from time to time by way of royalty in respect of the specified minerals if they had been worked out in the ordinary course.
The Clause goes on to provide that
In every case the arbitrator shall state in his award the tonnage of the specified minerals on which his award is based.
In one case there is no compensation, although the poor householder is not consulted, whilst in the other case, if the coal is not taken out, then the owner is paid for it as though it had been taken out. Truly it is still right to say that the poverty of the poor is their destruction. I want to ask hon. Members if that in itself does not justify voting against the Second Reading of this Bill, unless we are going to get some guarantee that these people are going to get some consideration. Another important factor is that this Bill originated in the other House, which is the happy hunting ground of coal barons and land owners. In the other House they readily gave facilities for this Bill. We have in this House a Minister of Mines, and he ministers to mines just so far as the gentlemen at the other end of the building will let him. That is the full extent of his Ministry.
I want to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman another question. As far as I can see, this Bill does not give the power to compel landowners and royalty owners to agree to work the coal which is now being worked, if they think it worth while to stop working it. Let me give a case. In the division which I have the honour to represent, some two
years ago, 250 miners in a certain mine got their notices. That was when 25 per cent. of the men in the district were out. Fourteen days before Christmas they got their Christmas box—14 days' notice. When the men's representatives went to the manager, they said, "We have had national reductions, we have had district reductions, we have agreed from time to time to local reductions, in order that the pit might go on; what are these notices for?" He said, "There is a dispute between us and the royalty owners. We have made the royalty owners a certain offer, and they say they will not agree, and the royalty owners are now going to close the mine." I wired to the Ministry of Mines, and got into touch with them later in this House. One had to make the matter public a good deal, and it was only by sheer publicity that ultimately the men and boys were allowed to work on a day-to-day notice.
I am not quite sure that this Bill deals with a case of that kind. If it does not what is it going to do? It is not going to get to the root of the problem at all. It still means that one individual, who happens to get 1s. a ton out of a certain seam—as a matter of fact they were getting more—if he cannot get exactly what he wants, has still the power to throw masses of people out of work! I sometimes think that my rigid constitutionalism is not exactly a good thing, because I remember that when there was a ferment in the country we could get a Sankey Commission, we could get a promise from the Government that we should have the whole of the minerals nationalised; and now, instead of that, they change over and quietly drop that problem and hand it to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to settle in his Committee and bring this to us—and they bring it to us as serving the public interest. They are doing nothing of the kind; they are serving their own interest, and if they had not served their own interest we should not have had this Bill here to-night. I am more inclined to take the line of opposing this Bill, but at any rate the public outside will get to know this, that, while the Government agrees with the people on the other side getting 20s. in the pound for the common householder, the thrifty man to whom the Government always pay a good deal
of attention and with whom they are always in love, there is no concern at all so far as this Bill is concerned. We will see that he gets to know about it outside in the country.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: The hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir L. Scott) told us, and I am very glad he did, that this is not a Bill which it is very easy to understand, and that even a lawyer would be puzzled with regard to some of the Clauses contained in it.

Sir L. SCOTT: In Part II.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Yes, it is Part II that I am going to deal with. The Bill, in its Preamble, professes to deal with the support of railways, buildings and works. Like the hon. Member who has just sat down, I come from a mining district, and upon several occasions one has had the opportunity of pointing out to the House the reasons why some of us are so anxious that the mines should be nationalised, in order that we might deal as a whole with the question, not only in regard to the support of railways, buildings and works, as in the case of this Bill, which is confined to the privileged interests only, but, as has already been pointed out, in regard also to the thousands upon thousands of other public buildings, like workmen's halls and institutes, and dwelling-houses, that have suffered for many years in the past. There is no attempt to deal with that grievance, though we have obtained promise after promise that something should be done in that direction. I want to register my protest emphatically against tinkering with this question and dealing piecemeal with it. The hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould) on Saturday at a gathering of the colliery managers bewailed the high cost of production of coal. I do not know where the increase has gone to, because in South Wales the workmen have not yet received the advantage of it. We are down on our bedrock minimum. The hon. Member said it was the means of preventing our trade expanding, especially with regard to iron and steel. I should like to have seen him here this evening, because I should expect him to protest against a Bill which would increase the cost of the working of the coal in the South Wales district. Any blocks of coal it is intended
to leave in the fashion this Bill proposes to deal with it must certainly tend to increase the cost of all the tonnage raised out of the colliery for a very long time to come, and for that reason, because the matter is only being proposed in this piecemeal fashion to be dealt with, I trust the Secretary for the Mines Department will see his way clear to withdraw the Bill and will not ask for the Second Reading to-night.

Mr. D. REID: I think hon. Members opposite are something less than just to the provision made by this Bill dealing with cases of subsidence. They do not seem to be aware that under the English law primâ facie the surface is entitled to support by the mineral. If there is a case in which the owner of the surface has not a right to compensation when there is subsidence, it is because that right has been taken away by previous agreement between the surface owner and the mineowner. We have cases continually where a man owning both minerals and surface sells the surface, reserving the minerals and reserving the right to let down the surface, well knowing that the purchase price he obtains is considerably lower than it would otherwise be. Hon. Members want to eat their cake and have it. If they choose to buy cottages built on land of which the owner has previously parted with the right of support they have nothing to complain of. [Interruption.] The hon. Member dissents because he does not know the facts. The Bill takes a step in their direction by making provisions in cases where people possess buildings on land which is not entitled to support. Hon. Members opposite are obsessed with the idea of barriers. They seem to think that royalty owners want to place barriers all over the mines. Do they not realise that they are either tied by acreage rent or tonnage rent? In former days, when coal was worked in smaller areas, there were considerable barriers. There are considerable barriers still, for the safety of the mines and the safety of working, but in arranging modern mining, the object of the royalty owner is to arrange for as few barriers as possible. It is to the interest of everybody that as much coal as possible should be got. In the deeper seams that are laid there are not nearly as many
barriers as there used to be. It is not to the interest of anyone to have barriers, except where engineering necessity requires it.
There is one provision in the Bill to which I might take exception. We have been told of the advantage there would be in working coal where the owner did not want it worked. The only provision in the Bill to which reference is made to that subject is in Part 1, Clause 1, which provides that where there is danger of minerals being left permanently un-worked:
a right to work the minerals may be conferred in the manner and subject to the provisions hereinafter appearing on any person having an interest in them, or, in the case of minerals owned in small parcels, in minerals adjoining them, who is desirous of working them, either by himself or through his lessees.
Here is the case of a man who has a small area of land with a small area of minerals under it, and he is surrounded by coalowners who want to work the small area. The owner of the land says he prefers to keep it from being worked, because he wants to keep it from being subject to subsidence. He wants to avoid that which the Labour Members desire to avoid in regard to their cottages; yet we have the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) blessing that provision, blessing that rapacious coalowner. I always thought the hon. Member was an ecclesiastically-minded layman, but I never thought he would throw over Naboth's vineyard in that way. I do not want to make comment on the Second part of the Bill. It represents an agreement between the various interests, and an agreement to the advantage of all interests. The result of the Howley Park decision was to sterilise a vast amount of coal. If that coal is not worked it cannot be of advantage to the coal miner, because large quantities of coal would be left in the mine. If the parties who are in the position to hold up the working of a mine have come to agreement amongst themselves, it must be of advantage to the men actually engaged in working the coal. I hope the Bill will be read a Second time.

Mr. MacLAREN: I intervene for a few minutes by way of criticism of this Bill. We were told by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir L. Scott) that it was a Tory Bill. It did
not require any very keen vision to see that. I shall always be keenly interested in any Bill dealing with minerals, particularly those Clauses appertaining to compensation or finance. The truly Tory character of this Bill emerges in the Clause dealing with the transfer of land. Hon. Members have stated that the object of the Bill is to facilitate the working of coal and make the best possible use of any large amounts of coal still in reserve. I would suggest that there are two ways of forcing the coal, or any of the mineral wealth of this country, into use. One would be to make it financially impossible for the owners of minerals to withhold these minerals from use. That way lies in the direction of taxing these owners of minerals upon the value of the minerals which they hold. The other is the Tory way—buying them up at an enhanced value. Speaking for myself, in direct disregard of anything said from the Front Bench on this side, I will oppose this Bill, because it is another step in the direction of compensating landowners. I know of no Government during the last 10 years more liberal in its compensating tendency towards landlordism.
This Bill is a proposal to facilitate the use of coal by compensating the landowners for the coal that they have in reserve on the land. My mind goes pack to the time of the famous Finance Act of 1909–10 when some Members of this House, and some—including myself—outside the House were very anxious, during the land campaign of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) to get what we considered to be a fundamental thing for breaking down Toryism in this country, a valuation of the land of this country. I often listened, in the Gallery of this House, to Tory Members stating: "We cannot get a valuation of this country. We cannot hope, even if we have a hypothetical valuation, to impose a tax on it because we cannot value the ungotten minerals." That was the snag on which they tried to wreck us when we tried to enforce a valuation for taxation purposes. But in this non-contentious, innocent Bill we find that compensation payable to royalty owners shall be based upon the amount which would have been received by way of royalty in respect of the specified minerals if they had been brought up in
the ordinary course. You can value the ungotten minerals for the purposes of compensation, but not for the taxation of land values in this country.
There aye other little things, as has already been said, with regard to subsidence. I come to this House to represent Burslem, in the heart of the pottery district. An old resident in that district has said that when after he has been away from the district for a while and comes back, Burslem's contour seems to be like the ocean, it waves a bit, some buildings going up and some going down. We built a new Town Hall a few years ago. It is now yawning at every gable. Houses are disappearing, and there is nothing in this Bill about the position of people who own this property. The last speaker put his finger on this very point when he said—and I should like all the hon. Members on our side of the House to appreciate what is behind this—that many owners of land have sold the right to some people to build on the surface, but they have not sold the right to the minerals underneath. I will take my own constituency as an example. Many small men bought small portions of surface land. We have heard a great deal about private enterprise, here were private enterprisers, taking their little bits of land, and building their little buildings upon them. To their consternation, they discovered afterwards that in the original transfers the mineral rights were reserved to the superiors. Those mineral rights were sold outright to a large mining company in my own Division, and to-day the people on the surface are calling out for compensation and are being told, "You cannot claim compensation because, in the original conveyance, the right to exploit the minerals was reserved by the superiors."
There is nothing in this Bill about compensation, because, as hon. Gentlemen opposite state, these rights were not procured in the first instance by those owning the surface, and not having secured them, the owner of the land, who is all-powerful and almighty, owns the minerals. We had a case the other day in my own Division, where we wanted land for a secondary school. We got the land, which had been condemned as unsuitable for working-class houses during the Addison scheme. It was rented at £4 10s. an acre, and we wanted it for that school. The
owners demanded £6,000, and the education authorities had to pay. I made inquiries as to the conveyance, and I found that in it the owners of the land had reserved to themselves the right to exploit the minerals underneath, and, if there were subsidence under that school, there should be no claims for compensation by the local authority. Is it any wonder that even my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Exchange Division (Sir Leslie Scott), for whose knowledge in these matters I have a great respect—indeed, I have learned much from many of the reports issued under his hand—said that this is a good Conservative Measure? It is one of the many presents which right hon. and hon Gentlemen opposite are offering to the table of the landowners of this country.
I appeal to hon. Members to beware. It is all very well to say that this Bill is not cutting deep into vital principles, and is not going into the field of nationalisation. As has already been said on this side of the House, this is a Bill to forestall anything that we may attempt to do in a much more liberal way, and more in conformity with the basis rights of justice, that all men have equal rights to the earth on which God put them, and that no men have the right to withhold the minerals underneath, which they never made. I could quote speech after speech of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in those great days, when even I was apprehensive. [HON. MEMBERS: "Your leader!"] I took him, in a way, as my leader, though I suspected him even then. When I saw this impetuous Welshman straining at the reins, and the austere driver in the chariot, I wondered whether the steed would break the reins and throw itself and its driver into the ditch. I have witnessed it: they are separated, and now looking askance at one another. But the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and hon. Gentlemen opposite, when the nation was at war and coal was an indispensable commodity, let out many a spark of truth, which will be revived the more right hon. and hon. Gentlemen attempt to bring in so-called innocent, non-contentious Measures of this kind. This Bill is a concession to the landowners. We recognise that there are many landowners
who deserve their place in society, as they do some useful service for the money that they take. But that cannot be said of the friends whom this Bill is to compensate. Whether or not there is an hon. Member on this side who has risen to give his absolution to this iniquity, I for one will oppose it every inch of the way.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I did not understand that the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) gave his blessing to this Bill, and I trust that he will lead us into the Lobby against the Second Reading. I agree in the main with what the last speaker said about this Bill. There are phases of it which he did not touch. We were told by the Secretary for Mines and by others that this was an agreed Bill, a Measure agreed upon by the coal-owners, the railway companies, and the royalty owners. Why were not the municipalities called in? Is there any hon. Member with experience of local government in a mining area who does not know that roadways are being sunk, sewers destroyed, poisonous gases set free to poison the community, drainage schemes smashed, and tramway systems broken up?
11.0 P.M.
Why should not the municipalities have been consulted? Have not gasworks been threatened with extinction, and have not municipalities been called upon to pay fabulous sums—bribery, backsheesh, blackmail, call it what you like—to the alleged owners of the minerals in the bowels of the earth, to prevent those gasworks being destroyed? The representatives of the public apparently are not to be consulted. References were made by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) and the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) to the fact that the party of hon. Members opposite represented property, and we are told so every day in their Press. Why did they not consult the small property owners; why did they not consult the man who has sunk all his little capital in the building of a house? The Minister of Health tells us that is an admirable thing to do. But do not do it in a mining area or your house may tumble about your ears on account of the royalty owner and no compensation will be paid. An hon. Member said a few moments ago that it was perfectly right and just that these houses should be
destroyed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am within the recollection of the House when I say that one hon. Member declared with emphasis that any man who built a house in a mining area where there were no guarantees that the coal would not be worked, did so at his own risk and no compensation should be paid. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] People who build houses in mining areas do not do so for fun; they build the houses to live in so that they may be near their work. Is it to go out to the public, as a doctrine of the Conservative party, that it is right and just and proper that these poor men should have their houses tumbled about their ears without a penny of compensation at the hands of the royalty owning class. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] An hon. Member says "Hear, hear." I hope he will be pilloried all over the working-class districts of Great Britain to-morrow, and I trust others who agree with him, and have not the courage to say so now, will also be pilloried. [An HON. MEMBER: "We do not agree."] Oh yes, you do. It is in your Bill. Your Bill provides compensation to royalty owners if their coal is not to be worked, and compensation to railway companies if it is worked, but no compensation for the small houseowner who has spent his all in building himself a home.
That is not the worst. Clause 4 provides for compensation to royalty owners who are not even the legal owners—those who have what is called "a legal disability." It means that people who have no valid title to the minerals in the bowels of the earth, who hold land which they or their ancestors have stolen and to which they have no title, are now to be given a valid title, not in a court of law, but by the Railways and Canals Commission. They are to be given compensation for minerals that they do not legally own. Let us take another amazing proposition in this Bill:
Where any such counter-notice has been served on the mineowner, the specified minerals shall not be worked or got after the service of the counter-notice, and the company shall pay compensation to the mine-owner and the royalty owner (if any) for the same being left unworked.
Even if there be a fault in it, compensation is to be given, compensation wherever there is damage to the land owning class
in this country, no matter how the industrial classes are treated. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary for Mines said he intended to move an Amendment to the Bill himself that it should be made applicable to Scotland. If he does that, he will get trouble; the Bill will cease to be an agreed Bill, if he sticks to Clause 14 and his interpretation of it. I wonder if he means that the paragraph:
'Minerals' includes all minerals and substances in or under land obtainable by underground or by surface working.
includes metals. If so, for the first time for hundreds of years you are taking away from the ownership of the Crown in Scotland that which is public property, and handing it over to private interests. For hundreds of years metals, at any rate, and, in my belief, minerals, in Scotland have been the property of the Crown. The lead mines are the property of the Crown in Scotland, and if you propose to bring under the terms of this precious Bill all the metals in Scotland and proceed to give compensation to dummy owners who do not own them and have been obstructing the working of them for years despite your Commissions, it will cause trouble. I think you had a Commission that sat during the War which said that there were 30 miles of good lead-bearing land in the lead hills represented by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Dr. Chapple) in Scotland which could not be worked, which the lead-workers were barred working, because the landowners would not allow a water branch pipe to be laid below their land when they were not going to get any benefit out of the metals. Are you going to begin at this time of day attempting to endow that gang? We are here as a protest against what has gone on in the past, and God forbid that we should sit silent and peaceable if you are going to do that. We will take every possible step in our power to prevent that idle, parasitic, useless class from bleeding the industry, the trade, the craftsmanship, and the labour of the British people any further than they have been allowed to do it in the past.

Mr. G. A. SPENCER: I wish to say that, if my friends were to force this Bill to a division, I should vote in favour of it. Any alteration that may be made, should be attempted in Committee and
not by attempting to defeat the main provisions of the Bill. There are details in the Bill I would like to see amended in Committee. For instance, it says in Clause 3 that the colliery owner shall have
a right to use and occupy the surface for spoil heaps, or for the erection of washeries, coke ovens, railways, by-product works, or brick making or other works.
I want to deal with the question of spoil heaps. I have not a great objection to the heap itself although that is bad enough, but I do think that if we allow the colliery companies to dump down these heaps, which are sometimes very essential, care should be taken to see that they are not constantly on fire. Where you have colliery heaps, you have spontaneous combustion and no one can live in any comfort in the immediate locality. Very often you find that the chief colliery owner lives some distance away. He is not troubled by the stench and fumes generated by the heaps. Therefore I say that, if this Bill passes the House to-night, in Committee care should be taken to protect those who have to live in close proximity to the colliery heaps.
Secondly, I know that if there are byproducts, the companies have the right of draining their liquids from the by-products into any stream or sewage. Everyone who has served on a local authority knows that from time to time the local authority has a great deal of trouble by reason of the fact that liquids from various works are allowed to go into the sewage, making it extremely difficult for the sewage to be dealt with. If this Provision is to be put in the Bill, making it possible for colliery owners to get rid of the liquid from their byproducts in this way, it ought to be made perfectly clear that it shall be such liquid as the sewage works can deal with properly and adequately. With regard to Provisions as to the getting of coal in the case of the small property owner, I have no objection to being compelled to lease the coal under my land, provided I can get satisfactory terms, but I am a little doubtful in regard to the tribunal that is set up. It is going to be a very difficult tribunal. Let us take the case of a man who has a small parcel of land. A colliery company want probably the whole of the coal under the
land, and as a matter of fact they will have the right to work the coal, but they cannot come to terms. If they cannot come to terms, so far as I read this Bill, the colliery, company can make application to the Board of Trade, and if the Board of Trade are satisfied that in the national interest the coal should be worked, they can refer the whole question to the Railways and Canal Commission for them to decide.
If you are to have this Commission acting in regard to land of that character, one of two things ought to take place. In the first place, provision should be put into this Bill that the terms and conditions which are to be allowed to the small owner should not be less favourable than the terms and conditions to be allowed to the principal mining royalty holders. If you have not a provision of that kind, you will get a man with a small parcel of land who will say to himself, "It is no use my going through with this as it will cost me far more money to attend this Commission and get my case adequately placed before them than the whole thing is worth." I have myself had experience just recently of having a house where a colliery company work the coal. It is copyhold, and half of it has to be paid over to the lord of the manor. We could not agree as to the amount to be paid for the coal under that small parcel of land, which was about as much as one seam was worth, and there were about five seams. I said they could get the coal for me. Where a colliery is working in these circumstances near a small town notice should be given to every owner whose coal the colliery wants to purchase, and on a given day the Commission should sit in that town, so that applications can be made on one day. If there is not a provision of that kind, they will have to go one by one, and it will mean that justice will not be done to those people who have small plots of land where a colliery is to be worked.
If we go to a Division to-night, I shall vote for the Bill, because I believe the two principles are sound that where the national interest is concerned it should be understood that the people who own the coal should be properly protected. I agree with everything that has been said to-night with regard to payment for damage for subsidence, but if this Bill be not passed, will these people be in any better position? Can anyone of them get
a penny damages against a colliery company or anyone else? If we do not pass this Bill, those people who have not got in their leases terms stating that they are to be compensated for damages that are done, will not be a penny better off, and we shall leave the country, from the mining point of view, in the bad condition in which it is to-day. With regard to boundaries, so far as I am concerned, I should not agree that there really ought to be an agreement between the owners. I believe that when a pit is sunk, and there is on one side perhaps half a mile, to the boundary and between that and the next pit 3½ miles, if I had my way the former would not be cut off at half a mile, but would continue to work until the two meet, so that instead of getting only the coal of a bad quality, they could work the whole piece, and it would be far more advantageous to the nation. Therefore, as far as boundaries are concerned, I myself would delete the lines of imaginary demarcation, and make it possible for each party to continue to work until they reached each other.

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: I may, perhaps, by leave of the House, reply to some of the points raised. With regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, the point as to draining liquid into sewage works is met, I think, by Clause 11 of the Bill. That and other points are Committee points. The main trend of this Debate has been, to oppose not what is in the Bill, but the absence of certain things which hon. Members want. I appeal to the House to take the Bill. Here you have a chance of getting certain things that can be carried out. I am hoping that at an early stage some action may be taken as desired by some hon. Members; but it cannot be taken this session; therefore let us do what we can. I do not think I need deal with the smaller points made; the main points have been met. The two chief objections, first as to their being no provision against subsidence, and secondly, against their being provision made for support, are mutually destructive. I do not think it requires me to go further. I appeal for a Second Reading to a Bill.

Mr. HARDIE: I want to deal—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"]—with the Bill from quite a different point of view
to the general trend of the discussion. Those who drafted the Bill surely did not designedly desire to appear stupid—if I may use the term—and so make hon. Members believe that they have not got reasoning powers. Suppose we take Clause 3, Sub-section (1, c)—
A right to use and occupy the surface for spoil heaps—
Do hon. Members imagine that in the year 1923, with all our boasted scientific knowledge, that here we are asking a supposedly intelligent House of Commons to accept a Bill that is going to give power to conduct the mining industry in this way; by bringing to the surface that which can be kept under and so keep the spoil in something like a logical continuance of the idea of support? Any intelligent crowd of men wishing to work a mine, especially in a country like ours, where we are told we are short, of land, would at once say that three things would happen if you did not follow this stupid and ugly method of bringing refuse to the surface. Those who understand the science of mining know that when you first begin to sink your shaft, of necessity you will have some spoil formed which you take back when there is storage room, and you should keep back every particle of dirt in your mine. There are thousands of reasons why all that stuff should be kept down the mine. Take it on the question of ventilation, men who understand mining know that when you get huge accumulation of gas you get it in these spaces and they become huge gasometers. For the proper ventilation of mines you should have these spaces packed and this is not only better for the ventilation of the pit but also for supporting the surface.
I want to deal with what is called the supports. The hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir L. Scott) said that in the early days when they did not know very much they used to leave 40 yards each side of a railway and that these people had blundered seriously by allowing that distance. Then he made the remarkable statement that the deeper you went for the coal there was a wider base because when a subsidence took place there was a greater draw.

Sir L. SCOTT: What I did say was that the deeper the mine is the greater
distance laterally the subsidence extends.

Mr. HARDIE: That is what I am saying. The deeper you go when your subsidence takes place you are going to have a greater draw. What are the facts? There are no two subsidences in coal-mining in Great Britain that have the same characteristics. If you take coal from below a whin-bank, with the White Horse rock above, then, with these great pieces 40, 50 and 60 feet long resting nearly perpendicular you have no subsidence. Why should the hon. Member nod his head, signifying agreement with an argument which is diametrically opposed to the Bill he is supporting? Not a single intelligent reason has been given for this Bill. Not a single figure has been given upon which any engineer who would claim the name would place the faintest reliance. I could show you places in Scotland where the bridges and embankments would not move in a thousand years because of the whin-bank; but I was in Tonypandy early this morning—looking out for facts. I saw one row of houses which had slipped down 4 feet 3½ inches—I measured it, and the railway company are taking down refuse from the surface and stowing it as fast they can to save the railway; but there is no talk of saving the houses. It is no use for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to come along in a superior way with this Bill which, because the great men of the House of Lords have said it is good, we are supposed to accept like so many lambs. I am not a lamb in this respect. I am going to vote against this Bill, because of the stupidity and lack of modern knowledge that it shows.
We are told by the Secretary for Mines that the agreement come to was that the supports allowed under a railway should be half the depth of the seam from the surface—that is to say, if you had a depth of 500 yards, 250 yards was to be left in upon which the railway was supposed to rest; but even if you left 500 yards at a depth of 200 or 300 fathoms, if you had the strata that you find in the Welsh valleys, you would not save it, because those strata are friable, and the moment you take away the coal they begin to break up into square blocks, which, again, break up into smaller square blocks—but they always remain square. Even
in the House of Lords they are still lacking in some little things so far as mining supports are concerned. If you want to deal with this matter as engineers should deal with it, why do you not get the men who are every day down there knowing what is taking place?
In this Bill not one word is said about that which always accompanies subsidence, namely, water and pumping. Here is where I feel that those who framed this Bill have not been serious. It seems to me that here are three types of thieves gathered together in order to consolidate their method of thieving, and they agree that one shall compensate the other; but when that compensation is paid it is to be put on to the back of the consumer. It is "Thieves' Consolidation, Unlimited." There is not a word about the science of mining. Instead of having one great pumping system draining the whole of a coalfield to its depths, you are, in the commercial anarchy which prevails, as if no science existed, allowing one man, because he is smaller than the other man, to be drowned out by the water, if he happens to be on the other side of the mine in question, letting the waters drown the poor little fellow, and if he cannot get enough money to pump and keep the water down he is flooded out and has to sell out at a cheap rate to the big company. There are intermittent springs in all mineral strata, and by changing the course of these you change the whole movement of the strata, and mineral strata are always on the move. You may not see it, but it is always moving. I have been in Tonypandy—I like to say that word—and I know what Lanarkshire is like and I know that for 4 miles from the Cross of Motherwell there is not a single piece of land on which houses rest where a man can say his house will be sitting plumb to-morrow morning when he wakes up. If the framers of this Bill had been serious in what the title would imply they would have had definite scientific measurements. They could have had their engineers and they would know the character of all the strata that overlay our minerals in these islands. They could have had the absolute weight to an ounce of the movement of the strata towards the pavement where the coal has been taken out. With all these
calculations and all that knowledge behind them and embodied in the Bill they could have had something which would be understood by intelligent men on this side and we should have been quite willing to pay tribute to the great minds that brought it forward, but here you have words, words, words. Why do you not get it set to music? You fail as promoters or supporters of this Bill in the fact that there is not a single word of evidence to show that those who brought it into being had the slightest knowledge how they were going to start to apply supports to the surface.

Sir L. SCOTT: On the Committee which was originally responsible for the Bill three of the most distinguished mining engineers in the country sat as Members, and we much regretted the absence of the hon. Member.

Mr. HARDIE: There is nothing in this Bill dealing with something which is just as serious as houses. There is nothing in the Bill dealing with surface water. You go calmly on stating that you may let down the surface. Why should you do that?

Mr. HOPKINSON: On a point of Order. Is an hon. Member in order on the Second Reading in discussing everything that is not in the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: On the Second Reading it is quite proper, within reason, of course, to discuss what provisions you would have liked to see in the Bill, provided they would be relevant to the Title of that Bill.

Mr. HARDIE: Where you have subsidence in agricultural land, in the centre of your best growing field, what are you to do? Our drains are all to pot; you have changed the run of the water, yet there is nothing in this Bill to deal with that. You are calmly saying that where it is agricultural land you are going to let it down if you like. I want also to refer to the pollution of rivers. I was looking to-day at what used to be the crystal streams of Wales.

Mr. SPEAKER: That would be in order on the Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries Bill.

Mr. HARDIE: It was the Secretary for Mines who put it into my head by referring to it. Where by-product works are put up, the effluent from them makes
it absolutely impossible for ordinary life to continue in a river. If proper care were taken there is not the slightest reason for a gallon of the effluent passing into any river, because if the promoters know what they are doing, they can make money out of it, and if they profess not to be able to know what to do, they ought to be compelled to put in effluent tanks and render the effluent harmless.
This is not a Mines Bill. It is a compact between three of the largest interests in order to pass on to the consumer whatever they may be called on to lose by the support of their own railways.

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: rose in his place, and claimed to move,
"That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, as he thought that the House was prepared shortly to come to a decision without that Motion.

Mr. SEXTON: Whatever is the policy of my party I always like to be loyal, but if the argument is to be used, as is continuously used, not only by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Walsh) but hon. Gentlemen who spoke on the opposite benches. If the Second Reading of a Bill is to be used as a means to protect iniquity, then there is a limit even to my loyalty. A more iniquitous principle than is embodied in this Bill, I cannot conceive. It is said that the Bill can be amended in Committee, but that is always said, and those who want to amend the Bill are in the minority, and when the Bill comes down to the House again those who do not agree with it are influenced by the fact that the Committee has agreed to it, and therefore the only chance of getting a protest entered is on an occasion like the present. We have had reference to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and his action many years ago, and since he has been below the Gangway we have had one or two touches of the vanished hand. I believe that he is beginning to find out the mistakes of the last four or five years and now wants to return to his old love, and if his old love will have him I will not raise any objection. But if this argument of a Second Reading is to be used to prevent any honest protest against an iniquitous principle like this being embodied, that a man who claims that he owns the surface can prevent the
balance of the earth being used, except at his own price, and that is advocated by Members opposite who denounced the bricklayer because he only lays so many bricks in a day, than, though I am anxious to be loyal to the party to which

I belong, there is a limit to human endurance, and that limit has now been reached.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 76.

Division No. 139.]
AYES.
[11.50 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Goff, Sir R. Park
Pielou, D. P.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Gould, James C.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Privett, F. J.


Apsley, Lord
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Gretton, Colonel John
Raine, W.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Guthrle, Thomas Maule
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Remer, J. R.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rentoul, G. S.


Barnston, Major Harry
Halstead, Major D.
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chrtsy)


Berry, Sir George
Harrison, F. C.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Betterton, Henry B.
Harvey, Major S. E.
Robertson- Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W.)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hawke, John Anthony
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rose, Frank H.


Blundell, F. N.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Bonwick, A.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Russell, William (Bolton)


Brass, Captain W.
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hinds, John
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hopkins, John W. W.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Houfton, John Plowright
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Shepperson, E. W.


Bruford, R.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Simpson Hinchliffe, W. A.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hudson, Capt. A.
Singleton, J. E.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Skelton, A. N.


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)


Button, H. S.
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cadogan, Major Edward
Jephcott, A. R.
Sparkes, H. W.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Jones, Henry Haydn, (Merioneth)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Stanley, Lord


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Steel, Major S. Strang


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Clayton, G. C.
Lamb, J. Q.
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lorimer, H. D.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Cope, Major William
Lumley, L. R.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Crooke, J. S. (Derltend)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Manville, Edward
Titchfield, Marquess of


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Margesson, H. D. R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dawson, Sir Philip
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Tubbs, S. W.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Edge, Captain Sir William
Mercer, Colonel H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Wallace, Captain E.


Ednam, Viscount
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Waring, Major Walter


Ellis, R. G.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Wells, S. R.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Nall, Major Joseph
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Whitla, Sir William


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Winterton, Earl


Forestier-Walker, L.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Wise, Frederick


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wolmer, Viscount


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Paget, T. G.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Furness, G. J.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque



Ganzoni, Sir John
Penny, Frederick George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Garland, C. S.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Lieut.-


Gates, Percy
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Colonel Gibbs.


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Peto, Basil E.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Herriotts, J.
Riley, Ben


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Ritson, J.


Batey, Joseph
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Saklatvala, S.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Salter, Dr. A.


Buchanan, G.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sexton, James


Buckle, J.
Lawson, John James
Shinwell, Emanuel


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Leach, W.
Simpson, J. Hope


Chapple, W. A.
Lee, F.
Snell, Harry


Charleton, H. C.
Linfield, F. C.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Collison, Levi
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Warne, G. H.


Darblshire, C. W.
M'Entee, V. L.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Webb, Sidney


Ede, James Chuter
March, S.
Wheatley, J.


Foot, Isaac
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Gosling, Harry
Morel, E. D.
Whiteley, W.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Murnin, H.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Grundy, T. W.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Harbord, Arthur
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hardie, George D.
Phillipps, Vivian
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Potts, John S.



Hayday, Arthur
Pringle, W. M. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Ammon and Mr. Lunn.


Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Special provisions as to the Solway Firth.)

1. With a view to the maintenance, improvement, and development of the salmon fisheries within the area (hereinafter referred to as the "Solway district") defined in Part I of the Fourth Schedule to this Act, the Minister and the Fishery Board for Scotland, acting jointly, may, upon such application as is hereinafter mentioned and subject to the provisions of this Section, make an Order under Part IV of this Act for the constitution of a fishery board, to be called the Solway District Board, representative of the persons interested in the salmon fisheries within the area so defined and in the rivers flowing into such area, and for the regulation by that Board of the salmon fisheries within that area, and on such Order being made and confirmed the provisions of this Act shall, subject to the provisions of this Section and the Order, apply to the Solway district.

2. The provision of Part V of this Act relating to appointed members, representative members, and ex-officio members of a fishery board shall not apply to the constitution of the Solway District Board.

3. An Order made under this Section—

(a) shall not authorise the imposition by the Solway District Board of contributions assessed on several fisheries;
(b) shall not enable the Solway District Board to erect fixed engines; and
(c) shall not (affect any existing private
2090
right of fishing or any existing right to use a stake net or fixed engine) which would have been lawful if the Order had not been made, and shall contain such prohibition or restriction of fishing within a prescribed distance of any such stake net or fixed engine as may be reasonably necessary for the protection of the interests of the persons entitled to use such nets or engines.

4. So much of Part VII of this Act as requires or authorises a fishery board to grant licences shall not apply to the Solway District Board.

Licences granted by a fishery board or district board of any fishery district abutting on the Solway district for use in its district shall be available for use in the Solway district but not so as to confer any right to fish in any place or at any time in or at which the licensee is not likewise entitled to fish or any right to fish within the Solway district in any manner or with any instrument in or with which it is not otherwise lawful to fish therein.

5. Nothwithstanding that licences are not issued by the Solway District Board that board shall have the like powers of limiting by Order the number of licences to be available for fishing in the Solway district as a fishery board has under Part VII of this Act of limiting the number of licences to be issued by the board, and any Order so made by the Solway District Board may, in order to secure such limitation of licences so available, limit the number of licences to be issued by any fishery board of any district abutting on the Solway district.

6. The expenditure incurred by the Solway District Board shall be defrayed out of contributions to be paid by the several fishery boards or district boards of the fishery districts abutting on the Solway district in such proportions and with such remedies for enforcement thereof as may be
prescribed by Order made under this Section.

7. Any offences committed in the Solway district against this Act or an Order made under this Section, or any bye-law made thereunder, shall be deemed to have been committed in any place abutting on that district, and may be tried and punished accordingly, but if proceedings are instituted in Scotland they shall be instituted and prosecuted as if the offences were offences under The Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1868, and the provisions of that Act as to offences shall apply accordingly with the substitution of references to this Act for references to that Act, and of references to the Solway District Board for references to a district board, but so that the penalties imposed by this Act for an offence against this Act shall be substituted for the penalties imposed by The Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1868.

8. As from such date as may be prescribed by an Order made under this Section, all powers of any fishery board, district board, or other authority constituted for the preservation of salmon, so far as they relate to salmon and salmon fishing, and are exercisable within the Solway district, shall absolutely determine, and the enactments mentioned in Part II. of the Fourth Schedule to this Act, and all bye-laws made thereunder, shall, so far as they relate to salmon and salmon fishing, cease to apply within the Solway district:

Provided that nothing in this section, or in any Order made thereunder, shall affect the powers of any district board with regard to assessments on any existing fisheries within the Solway district or the enactments relating thereto.

9. An application for an Order under this Part of this Act may be made by the fishery board or district board of any district comprising or abutting on any part of the area defined in the Fourth Schedule to this Act.

10. As from such date as may be prescribed by the Order constituting the Solway District Board, the public right of fishing which exists in such part of the Solway district as lies in England shall, subject to the provisions of this Section, extend to such part of that district as lies in Scotland.

11. For the purposes of this Section—
The expression "salmon" shall be deemed to include migratory trout;
The expression "district board" means a board constituted under the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Acts. 1828 to 1868;
The expression "existing" means existing at the date of the making of an Order under this Section.

12. Any expenses incurred by a district board under this Section in respect of any Order or confirming Bill under this Section or in respect of any application for any such Order, shall, whether the application for the Order was made by such board or not, be defrayed in like manner as expenses incurred by such board under the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Acts, 1828 to 1868, and any notice required by Part IV of this Act to
be published in the "London Gazette" shall, in the case of an Order made under this Part of this Act, be published also in the "Edinburgh Gazette."—[Sir R. Sanders.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause provides machinery to settle a controversy which has been going on for a long time. It was no new thing when Joshua Geddes had his nets destroyed by Red Gauntlet and his followers. The Clause enables the Solway to be dealt with by a joint board whenever the English and Scottish people who are interested can come to terms. Until such an agreement is reached the Clause has no effect. I am informed that the Clause is accepted by everyone concerned. I hope that those on each side will before long combine to ask for an order which will set up the Solway District Board, and so settle this ancient trouble.

Dr. CHAPPLE: I do not object to the Clause at all, but I wish later to move an Amendment to it, in substitution for one which is on the Paper in my name. I have had the advantage of consultation with the department, and they have been good enough to make certain suggestions for the improvement of the Amendment I had put on the Paper.

Clause read a Second time.

12 M.

Dr. CHAPPLE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed New Clause, in Sub-section (3,c) to leave out the words
affect any existing private right of fishing or any existing right to use a stake net or fixed engine,
and to insert instead thereof the words"
prejudice nor affect any existing private right of fishing or any existing right or title of owners of salmon fishings or the exercise of such rights in any way whether by haaf net, poke net, stake net, fixed engine or otherwise.
The object of the Amendment is to conserve existing private rights in salmon fisheries on the North Shore of the Solway. Scotland would be outside the scope of the Bill were it not for this Clause, and as the Amendment becomes necessary for the object I have men-
tioned, I understand the Minister is willing to accept this form. The Clause purported, first of all, to be in conformity with the Stafford Howard Report, but the Report recommended that these private rights should be bought out. The Clause makes no such provision so that the purchase of the rights would be optional by the new Fisheries Board. On the question of compensation these rights might be adequately secured in obedience to the well-known rule that no right of private ownership in property of any kind should be invaded or seized or abolished by the State without adequate compensation, but I think it necessary to have this addition.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Protection of waters containing fish from poisonous matter and trade effluents.)

1. No person shall cause or knowingly permit to flow, or put or knowingly permit to be put, into any waters containing fish, or into any tributaries thereof, any liquid or solid matter to such an extent as to cause the waters to be poisonous or injurious to fish or the spawning grounds, spawn or food for fish, and if any person contravenes this subsection he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act:

Provided that—
(a) A person shall not be so liable to any penalty for any act done in the exercise of any right to which he is by law entitled or in continuation of a method in use in connection with the same premises prior to the passing of this Act, if he proves to the satisfaction of the court before which he is charged that he has used the best practicable means, within a reasonable cost, to prevent such matter from doing injury to fish or to the spawning grounds, spawn or food of fish;

3. Proceedings under this section shall not be instituted except by the fishery board or by a person who has first obtained a certificate from the Minister that he has a material interest in the waters alleged to be affected.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, a), after the word "penalty" ["liable to any penalty"], to insert the words "under this Act."
I know it is not popular to move Amendments at this time of night, but I am not concerned with popularity. What I am concerned with is the prevention of the pollution of rivers and streams, and the
object of the Amendment is to make it quite clear that the new powers proposed by Clause 8 will not prejudice the rights of private individuals, in case they suffer damage through the pollution of rivers. On the Second Reading the Minister said the Bill was not intended to prejudice civil actions for damages, and the Amendment, if accepted, will make that quite clear.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The Amendment, if the hon. and gallant Member will allow me to say so, is really unnecessary. The first part of the Clause says that a person who does certain things shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and in the next line it says that the person shall not be "so" liable to any penalty, &c. Those words are, in my submission, incapable of any other meaning except that a person shall not be liable to the penalty mentioned in the preceding two lines in the Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: That sounds very satisfactory, but there may be actions at law, and the learned counsel engaged may differ from the learned Solicitor-General on this point. Would it very much injure the Bill if these simple words were added? I do not think it would injure the grammar, and it would certainly make it clearer.

Amendment negatived.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, a), to leave out the words
or in continuation of a method in use in connection with the same premises prior to the passing of this Act.
This is an Amendment of considerable importance, not only to all of us who are anglers, but to all those in this House who represent anglers, because much very serious damage to angling in this country will be committed if these words remain in the Bill. This is not an agreed Measure or an agreed Clause, as has been suggested by the Ministry of Agriculture in the various circulars which it has issued to the public. I have had it said to me in the Lobby that I ought not to oppose this Bill, seeing that it is an agreed Bill, but it is nothing of the sort. The angling associations of this country have not agreed to this Bill as it stands at the present moment. The Ministry of Agriculture, in October, wrote to the
county councils of England and Wales, stating that Clause 8, the pollution Clause, the vital Clause, of the Bill as at present drafted, has the support of the National Association of Fishery Boards, and in this connection he drew the attention of the county councils to the Memorandum on the Bill recently issued by the National Association of Fishery Boards. But what are the facts? The last meeting of the National Association of Fishery Boards was held in February, 1922, over a year ago, and the Erskine Amendment, which is the Amendment I am seeking to remove from the Bill, was not inserted in the pollution Clause until the month of July, and since the insertion of that Amendment there has been no meeting, so I am informed on the beet authority, of the National Association of Fishery Boards. It is, therefore—and I use the term with no offence—not correct to say that this Clause has the approval either of the National Association of Fishery Boards or of anglers generally.
I wish to impress on hon. Members how vital is this matter in so far as the future of angling, the noblest of recreations, is concerned. I will state exactly what the position is. Since the Rivers Pollution Act, 1876, became law on 15th August of that year, it has been quite impossible by prescription, that is to say, by continuing a course of conduct extending over a long period, to acquire a right of pollution, but in 1876 the Act gave to manufacturers and to owners of mines and other individuals of that description, who were polluting at the time of the passing of the Act, the right to continue to pollute so long as they used the best practical and available means of rendering their effluent harmless. It was also held in the courts that the cost of installing these means should not be too prohibitive, having regard to the result obtained. That was the effect of the Act of 1876, but by that Act no manufacturer who commenced to pollute after the Act had passed was allowed to pollute, and, if he were proceeded against in the courts he could not plead that he had used the best practical and available means to render harmless the polluting matter [Laughter.] I am not sure what it is that occasions the mirth of the hon. Member. It may be that he is thinking about the new land campaign to be intro-
duced by his leader. That is the law as it stands at the present moment.
Now comes this Bill, introduced by the Minister of Agriculture, with the Clause which I am seeking to amend. The Clause as it stands will give to persons who have no right under any circumstances to pollute, but who have been polluting since that date—it will give them the right to plead that they have used the best practical means under the existing law which they could. I hope I have made this clear to the House and that the House will support this Amendment. I hope it is now clear to hon. Members where exactly lies the difference between the present law and the law as it will be if this Clause be carried with the objectionable words which I am seeking to delete. I do hope hon. Members will give me their support on this Amendment which seeks to prevent the destruction of most angling throughout the country and that, in giving me their support, they will make it quite clear that they are determined not to legalise the existing pollution nor to extend pollution in the direction of destroying salmon trout, coarse fish and every other class of fish.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I would point out to the hon. and gallant Member that his present Amendment, as drafted, will shut out his next Amendment on the Paper.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for pointing that out, but the next Amendment was an alternative amendment.

Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to second the Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am sure the House is indebted to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his exposition of the Amendment on the Paper. I would like to say, however, first, that it is not quite a fact that angling associations are opposed to the Bill as it stands. In fact, the representations received from the angling associations and Fishery Boards in favour of the Bill as it stands to-day are beyond number. The position is that the Bill as it stands is a compromise to some extent. It creates a new class of offences, dealing with such pollution as will interfere, not only with salmon but with the spawn of fish. For the purpose of the new group of
offences created by this Clause, the proviso is made that it shall be a possible defence to show that when a person is polluting a stream he is exercising a prescriptive right. He is also to show that he has taken the best possible steps to prevent the pollution. That is a defence which is only available for the purpose of the new offence created by this Section, and will not provide a defence for any offence which is an offence apart from this Bill; therefore, anything which is made illegal by the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, will still be an offence. It will not be possible for anyone to acquire a prescriptive right to do that which is illegal under the Pollution Act of 1876, because there cannot be a prescriptive right to do that which is illegal. When this Bill was before the House of Lords, it is quite true there seemed to be an attempt to prevent the Bill from being as effective as it might have been. At the same time it is a compromise. The Bill is a distinct step forward. These words do not touch any offence which already exists under the Pollution Act of 1876. The interests of Fishery Boards and associations of anglers have been met to some extent; the opposition of other persons has been removed, and I am sure the House will not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member as I venture to assure the House it is unnecessary. I, therefore, hope the Amendment will not be pressed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is common ground that the Bill does not legalise the fouling of rivers. The words we propose to leave out do admit of the defence being put forward, which was only granted under the Act referred to, to those who acquired it from the date of the passing of that Act, whether in the exercise of their business or other certain privileges. By the time this Bill receives Royal assent these words will encourage putting forward the view that the best practical means were being used to prevent fouling. That will be a great weapon in the hands of wealthy corporations against comparatively poor fisheries associations and small local authorities who are fighting over this great question of pollution. That is the whole point. Furthermore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman told us that there is not much opinion in favour of this Amendment, and very many fishery boards and angling
associations are in favour of the Bill. But many hon. Members will have received from their local angling associations and other bodies representing the fishermen, requests to support this Amendment. I have received many from Yorkshire, from associations and a body of anglers representing a thousand members, mostly working men, who write asking me to support the Amendment, and to oppose the Bill in its entirety if Lord Erskine's Amendment in Clause 8 is not withdrawn—which we are now attempting to do. These associations put the matter from the anglers' point of view, but there is also the public health point of view.
This, after all, is a very serious matter. Industrialism in this country has worked many ills on the community, but one of the worst things that has happened has been the fouling of our beautiful English livers and streams. Anything that can be done to strengthen the hands of those bodies who are fighting for pure streams and pure rivers and for the health and pleasure they give—anything that can be done to strengthen those comparatively poor associations who are fighting these battles should be done.
This Amendment will help them. We feel bound to divide on this, and we hope we shall have the support, apart from any question of party, of all those who want to protect poor anglers, especially in the neighbourhood of our great industrial centres and those who want to help the health of the community which after all does depend very largely on clear and pure waters flowing through the countryside—those who want to preserve something of the beauties of our natural landscape we appeal to those who want to support sportsmen, who love beauty and Nature. We used to have a lovely country. It is only lovely now in parts owing to the industralisation of our land. It is on practical sentimental grounds, for reasons of health, and for reasons connected with the support of an inexpensive, domestic and popular sport of vast numbers of deserving citizens. On all these grounds, I trust the House will not be led away by the exposition of legal arguments by the Solicitor-General. He, of course, speaks from the legal point of view. We are not thinking of the briefs of lawyers—I do not say he is—but we are trying to make legislation simpler and easier and more accessible to those
great fishing communities and associations of anglers for whom we speak. For all these reasons, I hope we shall get more support than we did on the last occasion.

Mr. McENTEE: I wish to put a point to the Solicitor-General. I happen to represent one of those towns bordering on the River Lea. We are rated at the present time at something over 25s. in the £, and we shall be taxed with an expenditure of £200,000. This is very serious from the point of view that a penny rate brings in £2,000, and an expenditure of £200,000 is an exceedingly important thing. I ask the Solicitor-General how this is going to affect us. The effluent from the sewage farm is always under the observation of the Lea Conservancy Board. I shall be compelled to vote against the Bill from that point of view, although I agree that the public health point of view is the most important, and I do not like to be compelled to vote against a Bill that may be rightly said to be a Bill that will improve the public health.

Sir R. SANDERS: If the hon. Member will look at Clause 43, he will see that this Bill does not provide for the River Lea.

Mr. PRINGLE: rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member, by seconding the Amendment, has exhausted his right to speak.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has spoken.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. May I ask is it not recognised that an hon. Member may second by raising his hat, and yet preserve his right, to speak?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The act of seconding constitutes the exercise of the right to speak.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 162; Noes, 40.

Division No. 140.]
AYES.
[12.32 a.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Ednam, Viscount
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Jarrett, G. W. S.


Apsley, Lord
Ellis, R. G.
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
England, Lieut. -Colonel A.
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Lamb, J. Q.


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Barnston, Major Harry
Forestier-Walker, L.
Lorimer, H. D.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Lumley, L. R.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Berry, Sir George
Furness, G. J.
Manville, Edward


Betterton, Henry B.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Margesson, H. D. R.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Garland, C. S.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Blundell, F. N.
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Gould, James C.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.


Brass, Captain W.
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Nall, Major Joseph


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Nicholson, Brig-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Bruford, R.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Paget, T. G.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Halstead, Major D.
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Button, H. S.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Cadogan, Major Edward
Harrison, F. C.
Penny, Frederick George


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Harvey, Major S. E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hawke, John Anthony
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Peto, Basil E.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pielou, D. P.


Clayton, G. C.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Privett, F. J.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hinds, John
Remer, J. R.


Cope, Major William
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rentoul, G. S.


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Houfton, John Plowright
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Edge, Captain Sir William
Hudson, Capt. A.
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Steel, Major S. Strang
Wells, S. R.


Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.
Whitla, Sir William


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Winterton, Earl


Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry
Wise, Frederick


Shepperson, E. W.
Titchfield, Marquess of
Wolmer, Viscount


Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Singleton, J. E.
Tubbs, S. W.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Skelton, A. N.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.



Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Wallace, Captain E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sparkes, H. W.
Waring, Major Walter
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Lieut.-


Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)
Colonel Gibbs.


Stanley, Lord




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Potts, John S.


Bonwick, A.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Pringle, W. M. R.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Saklatvala, S.


Chapple, W. A.
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Leach, W.
Warne, G. H.


Darbishire, C. W.
Linfield, F. C.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Ede, James Chuter
M'Entee, V. L.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Foot, Isaac
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow. Govan)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gosling, Harry
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.



Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Millar, J. D.
Lieut.-Colonel Arthur Murray and


Harbord, Arthur
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.


Hayday, Arthur
Phillipps, Vivian

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (3).
It is impossible to understand the motives of the Minister of Agriculture in putting this Sub-section into the Bill. This Sub-section proposes that
Proceedings under this Section shall not be instituted except by the fishing board or by a person who has first obtained a certificate from the Minister that he has a material interest in the waters alleged to be affected.
What was wrong with the old procedure? Why should not the private person be able to take proceedings as was the case under the law as it stands? This Sub-section, if it stands in the Bill, will impose hardship upon the riparian owner and upon anglers and make it more difficult to institute proceedings, and secondly to prove cases of pollution. It is a Subsection which, if passed, will be entirely disadvantageous to the public. I cannot conceive any advantage whatsoever it is going to bring to any person who is interested in the subject of fisheries. Its effect will be to limit the power of prosecution. In many districts, as we know, and certainly as the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) who is a prince of anglers knows, there are no fishery boards, but only local authorities, and in that case it would be perfectly impossible for the powers under this Clause to be put into operation. I suggest to the Minister and to the House—and I
hope the House will give me more support for this Amendment than it did for the last—that anglers ought to have power to prosecute without having to satisfy an autocratic Minister of Agriculture that they possess a national interest in the polluted waters. In the hope that the House will give me this support I beg to move.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to second the Amendment. I am glad my hon. and gallant Friend was not deterred from moving this Amendment. The last Amendment was avowedly in the interest of anglers and the public health, but this Amendment is in the interest of the constitutional rights of the individual. This Sub-section proposes to take away the rights of the citizen to have resource to His Majesty's courts of law until he has the gracious permission of some bureaucrat sitting in London. I am not, of course, referring to the right hon. Gentleman, because all the deputations etc. will be received, not by him, but by one of the permanent officials. I rather think that this is an entirely new departure in law. I have only been a short time in this House and there are many more experienced legislators, but I would very much like to know since when it has been proposed to limit the rights of the subject to go to law when he is aggrieved. These are the days when we are being
taught that the only resource that an aggrieved person should have is in the legislature or in the law, and here you are limiting these rights by Act of Parliament. I think it is very extraordinary.
This is a constitutional point and I think that must be obvious to everyone. I was not on the Committee of this Bill, but I do hope the matter was fought out there. If it was not, I think the Committee did not quite do their duty, and it is our place on Report to put it right if it was neglected. There is another practical objection. When a river is affected by the residue of mills, etc., it is necessary to take instant action, otherwise a great deal of harm is done to the fisheries. This proposal will put an extra cause of delay in the way of the aggrieved parties who have to go to the trouble of appealing to the Minister of Agriculture before they can even lodge an action. If they are not wealthy, they cannot go to the extent of instructing lawyers. We have all had experience of how Government Departments can delay and procrastinate in taking decisions of any sort, and there is no knowing at all how long it will take to get the permission of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries before the action can be proceeded with. In the meantime, the damage may be done, the stream may be fouled, the fish may be lying dead, and the fishing hopes of the community of anglers may be killed for that year; fishing clubs and fishing bodies may have to be annulled, children may be poisoned and the whole community's health may be affected by noxious matter being allowed to flow in a river which was formerly clean, before we can take constitutional action. It is surely a very ancient privilege of His Majesty's lieges, but until we have the permission of the right hon. Gentleman or of one of his permanent officials nothing can be done. There have been cases of violent action by people, and this may make working people take direct action. It is all very well—I am not making any personal attack—for wealthy anglers to be indifferent to this matter. We all know the valuable fishery rights in the north of Scotland and in the west of England are not likely to be affected by industrial pollution of the water. What we have to think about are the rights of the poorer men in the industrial centres.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: On a point of Order. Is it right for hon. Members to stand laughing outside the Bar?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I did not observe it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I addressed my brief remarks to the Speaker, and did not hear them, but I am obliged to the hon. Member for having brought the fact he mentioned to the notice of the House. We have to think of the people crowded together in our growing industrial centres whose pleasures are more circumscribed every day. One of their few recreations left is the harmless and gentle art of angling. They are to be precluded unless there is a Fishery Board from proceeding to law. That means that any fishing club or any riparian owner who thinks himself injured in his rights cannot go to law and get a nuisance stopped until he has permission from Whitehall. That is preposterous.

Sir R. SANDERS: The condition in this Clause to which the hon. and gallant Member who seconded the Amendment alluded as something very extraordinary and revolutionary, is not nearly so stringent as that laid down in the Rivers Pollution Act, 1876. There it was laid down that prosecutions had only been taken by the Sanitary Authority, and even the Sanitary Authority was not allowed to take such proceedings without the consent of the Local Government Board. Here we are giving power, not only to the Fishery Board to take these sort of proceedings—and, after all, the Fishery Board is the proper body for the purpose because everyone interested in the fisheries has either a direct or indirect representation on the Fishery Board—but we are going further and saying that if anyone who has a material interest in the fishing wishes to proceed against anyone who is polluting the river, he has a right to do so if he gets the consent of the Minister. I need not say that such leave is not likely to be frivolously withheld. But this Clause is not meant to subject anyone who has rights to use the river for effluent to irresponsible proceedings. After all, they have rights as well as anyone else. Agreement was come to on this Clause, and however keen we may be on fishing,
we do not wish to be unreasonable, and we do not wish to subject other people to unreasonable vexation or annoyance. The Clause gives more to the angler than was given under the Rivers Pollution Act and I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. PRINGLE: There are several questions with which the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt. What is the position where there happens to be no Fishery Board? Where there was no Fishery Board the circumstances were much better under the Act he quoted, because there was a Sanitary Authority and consequently to the extent that you limit prosecutions to places where there are Fishery Boards, or to private persons who receive the consent of the Minister of Agriculture, you are placing a limitation on the existing powers to obtain a conviction.

Sir R. SANDERS: That is not so. The powers of the Rivers Pollution Act still remain.

Mr. PRINGLE: I understood that this was a consolidating Bill.

Sir R. SANDERS: It does not consolidate the Rivers Pollution Acts but the Fisheries Acts.

Mr. PRINGLE: The right hon. Gentleman has been endeavouring to induce the House to believe that the Sub-section is important because it supersedes the Rivers Pollution Act, which merely gives a right to a sanitary authority, while this gives the right to the Fishery Board and a private individual with the consent of the Minister. That was the argument with which he met the case made.

Sir R. SANDERS: This is additional to and not in substitution.

Mr. PRINGLE: Then what is the force of the right hon. Gentleman's argument that he improves the matter? What legislation is this consolidating? It is consolidating the Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries Acts. Under these Acts there was no limitation at all. We are considering

the effect of this consolidating and amending Bill on the law as it stands and not on collateral Acts. To quote the Rivers Pollution Act in relation to this is totally irrelevant. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to prove that no party's, rights are being affected, he ought to tell the House what is the state of the law apart from this consolidating Bill. I understand that apart from this consolidating Bill there are wider powers of prosecution than exist under this Clause, and unless the right hon. Gentleman can show that nobody's rights of prosecution are diminshed by this consolidating Bill I contend that he has made no answer to the case of my hon. Friend. As I understand it, under the Act of 1861, the police could prosecute; a member of the public could prosecute. I would ask the Solicitor-General if I am not stating the law correctly, that under the Acts which this Bill professes to consolidate and amend there was available to the police and to an ordinary member of the public the right to bring a case of this kind into Court, in addition to the sanitary authority? The case, therefore, is this: that by restricting the power of prosecution to fishery boards and to persons who have a material interest, with the assent of the Minister of Agriculture, a restriction is being imposed on the rights of the public by this Bill. It is the same thing as happened in the previous Sub-section. What the Government is professing to do with one hand it is taking away with another. It professes to make the law more stringent, but it is limiting the rights of ordinary individuals to enforce it. The Minister says the Clause is a compromise. It is a compromise in this sense: it is adding nothing to the effectiveness of the law as it at present stands, rather it is diminishing the power of individuals to act and it is likely to give greater immunity.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'a' ["obtained a certificate"], stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 158; Noes, 40.

Division No. 141.]
AYES.
[1.1 a.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Barnston, Major Harry
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Brass, Captain W.


Apsley, Lord
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Brassey, Sir Leonard


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Berry, Sir George
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Betterton, Henry B.
Brittain, Sir Harry


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Blundell, F. N.
Bruford, R.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Buckingham, Sir H.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hawke, John Anthony
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.


Button, H. S.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Richardson, Lt.-Col- Sir P. (Chertsey)


Cadogan, Major Edward
Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hinds, John
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Clayton, G. C.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Houfton, John Plowright
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Cope, Major William
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hudson, Capt. A.
Shepperson, E. W.


Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Singleton, J. E.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Skelton, A. N.


Edge, Captain Sir William
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croyden, South)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Sparkes, H. W.


Ednam, Viscount
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stanley, Lord


Ellis, R. G.
Lamb, J. Q.
Steel, Major S. Strang


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lorimer, H. D.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Lumley, L. R.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Manville, Edward
Thomson, T, (Middlesbrough, West)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Margesson, H. D. R.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Forestier-Walker, L.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Tubbs, S. W.


Furness, G. J.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Nall, Major Joseph
Wallace, Captain E.


Garland, C. S.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Waring, Major Walter


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wells, S. R.


Gould, James C.
Paget, T. G.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Whitla, Sir William


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Penny, Frederick George
Winterton, Earl


Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wise, Frederick


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wolmer, Viscount


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Peto, Basil E.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pielou, D. P.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Halstead, Major D.
Privett, F. J.



Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harrison, F. C.
Remer, J. R.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Lieut.-


Harvey, Major S. E.
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Colonel Gibbs.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Phillipps, Vivian


Bonwick, A.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Potts, John S.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pringle, W. M. R.


Chapple, W. A.
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Saklatvala, S.


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Leach, W.
Warne, G. H.


Darbishire, C. W.
Linfield, F. C.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D, (Rhondda)


Ede, James Chuter
M'Entee, V. L.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Foot, Isaac
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gosling, Harry
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.



Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Millar, J. D.
Lieut.-Colonel Arthur Murray and


Harbord, Arthur
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.


Hayday, Arthur
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)



Bill read the Third time, and passed.

CLAUSE 24 (Powers for Fishery Board to place gratings in water-courses.

(2) The grating shall be some device approved by the Minister, for preventing the passage of salmon or trout through the conduit or channel in which it is placed.

5. If any person,—

(a) injures any such grating; or
(b) removes any such grating or part thereof, except during any period of the year during which under a byelaw made by the fishery board gratings need not be maintained; or
2108
(c) opens any such grating improperly; Or
(d) permits any such grating to be injured, or removed, except as aforesaid, or improperly opened.

he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.

Major PAGET: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "shall be some," and to insert instead thereof the words
for the purpose of this and the preceding Section shall be any.
I propose to take the opposite method of softening the Minister's heart. I do not propose to make a speech in proposing this Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sir Arthur Holbrook). He has been taken sick.

Major WHELER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What is the meaning of the Amendment? The hon. Member who was to have moved the Amendment has been taken sick, and the hon. and gallant Member who moved for him and the Hon. Gentleman who seconded or the Minister has not said one word about it.

Sir R. SANDERS: It simply amplifies the Sub-section to include something that looks like a grating, but does not quite come in under the same name.

Lieut-Colonel MURRAY: The Minister may have given, from his point of view, a very intelligible explanation, but I venture to say it is perfectly unintelligible to the House. So far as I can see, this Amendment substitutes for the word "grating" the words "or other device."

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is speaking to the wrong Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In Subsection 5, paragraph (a), after the word "grating" ["any such grating"], insert the words "or other device."

In paragraph (b), after the word "grating" ["any such grating"], insert the words "or other device."

In paragraph (c), after the word "grating," insert the words "or other device."—[Major Paget.]

Major PAGET: I beg to move, in Subsection (5, d), after the word "grating" ["any such grating"], to insert the words "or other device."

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I desire to ask the Minister of Agriculture what is meant by this Amendment? He has not given any explanation to the House. This Amendment substitutes for the word "grating" the words "or other device." In any event, the effect would be the same, whether you add or substitute. The effect would be to allow any device, that seems to me to explain the
intentions of the Clause. I should like to ask the Minister whether there is any limitation at all to the device that may be used, and what device is proposed to be used? Surely, if the Minister accepts the Amendment, he knows what it means and will he explain to the House what it does mean?

Sir R. SANDERS: If the hon. and gallant Member will look at the words that were under discussion, he would see that if injury is caused to a grating or other device an offence is committed under the Bill. There may be something, as I said just now, very much like a grating, if it does not exactly define it by that word and if anyone injures that he is guilty of an offence under this Bill, although it is not properly described as a grating.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: If the Government accept this Amendment they are making matters rather peculiar in the eyes of a number of people. It will mean that the Fisheries Board or those who bring about a prosecution may take up a prosecution upon something that may not be considered to be very penal. "Any other device" means anything, and does not in any way define what is to constitute an offence. The hon. and gallant Member who moved the original Amendment to which this is purely consequential, has not given an explanation of what is meant by the Amendment and its particular application. The Minister of Agriculture has not in any way described what may be brought within the term. It is all very well to say something like a grating. You are leaving the whole thing open. I think the House should be given at least some idea as to what devices are meant. I am perfectly at sea regarding this, though perhaps that is appropriate in dealing with such a "Any other device" is quite an unfamiliar term and when you are bringing in what is called a consolidating Bill in order to make the law much clearer than it has been in the past, where you wish to define the powers given to Fisheries Boards and which have to understand what their powers were to be, it is necessary to make the Act plainer than you have done in the provisions of this Bill. I hope I may have the attention of the Minister although perhaps there is a discussion going on on the Front Bench as to what "any other device" may actually mean because
the Front Bench is in a little difficulty there and do not quite understand what it really means. You should try to make the law more definite and not put in such a vague phrase. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will give us what is in his mind as to the legal interpretation of "any other device" so that anyone who turns up the Debate upon this particular Amendment will know exactly what the legal meaning of the phrase is and will understand just how far he has to go and how much he can do in the way of interfering or tampering with these things that are called "any other device."

Mr. PRINGLE: I regret very much that my hon. and gallant Friend was unable to address you on these consequential Amendments. I think there is no justification for these consequential Amendments at all. If hon. Members would look at Sub-section (2) it would be seen that there is no real difference made which renders a consequential Amendment necessary. The Sub-section as it stands in the Bill says:
The grating shall be some device approved by the Minister, for preventing the passage of salmon or trout through the conduit or channel in which it is placed.
The Amendment alters the words
The grating shall be for the purpose of this and the preceding Section any device—
Consequently no consequential Amendment is necessary. I submit that to the Attorney-General. If grating covers any device mentioned by the Minister the words other device are totally unnecessary and may cause difficulty or confusion. I submit the Government should take means of getting rid of these unnecessary words. I believe the Lords will have to consider them and I suggest that these consequential Amendments should be removed in the House of Lords. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that point.

Sir R. SANDERS: I will submit that to the draftsmen.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 36.—(Prohibition on using eel basbets, etc., at certain times.)

1. No person shall—
(b) at any time place upon any dam or other obstruction any basket, trap,
or device for taking fish, except wheels or leaps for taking lamperns between the first day of August and the first day of March following.

2. If any person contravenes this Section he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.

3. Nothing in this Section shall extend to prohibit the use of eel baskets not exceeding in any part ten inches in diameter, constructed so as to be fished with bait, and not used at a dam or other obstruction or in any conduit or artificial channel by which water is deviated from a river.

Amendments made: In Sub-section (1, b), leave out the words "any dam or other obstruction", and insert instead thereof the words "the apron of any weir".

At end of Sub-section (3) insert the words
or any device for taking eels in such place, during such time, and subject to such conditions as may be authorised by the fishery board with the consent of the Minister or, where there is no fishery board, by the Minister."—[Sir R. Sanders.]

CLAUSE 48.—(Representative members of rod fishermen for fish other than salmon).

2. The Minister may at any time make a scheme as to the manner in which such representatives are to be appointed or elected.

3. Until such a scheme is made such representatives shall be appointed by the Minister, and thereafter shall be appointed or elected in accordance with the scheme.

Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), leave out word "make" ["may at any time make"], and insert instead thereof the word "sanction."

In Sub-section (3), leave out the word "made" ["such scheme is made"], and insert instead thereof the word "sanctioned."—[Sir R. Sanders].

CLAUSE 56.—(Power to mortgage revenue or property).

A fishery board may, with the consent of the Minister, for the purpose of defraying any costs, charges, and expenses incurred or to be incurred by them under this Act, borrow at interest on the credit of any revenue receivable by them, or of any other property belonging to them, any money necessary for defraying such costs, charges, and expenses; and may for the purpose of securing the repayment of any money so borrowed, with interest thereon, mortgage to the persons by or on behalf of whom the
money is advanced, Such revenue or property, or any part thereof; and the provisions of the Commissioners Clauses Act, 1847, with respect to mortgages to be created by the commissioners, shall be incorporated with this Act, and any mortgagee may enforce payment of his principal and interest by appointment of a receiver.

Sir R. SANDERS: I beg to move, to leave out the words "costs, charges, and expenses" ["defraying any costs, charges, and expenses,"] and to insert instead thereof the word "expenditure."
This Amendment is to make clear a point raised by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Dr. Chapple) in Committee. I undertook to make the point quite clear by inserting the word "expenditure"

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: Leave out the words "costs, charges, and expenses" ["defraying such costs, charges, and expenses"], and insert instead thereof the word "expenditure."—[Sir R. Sanders.]

CLAUSE 59.—(Power of boards to make bye-laws for certain purposes.)

1. A fishery board, or where there is no board the Minister, may, subject to the provisions of this Act, make bye-laws for any of the following purposes; (that is to say,)—
(h) To prohibit the carrying in any boat or vessel whilst being used in fishing for Salmon or trout of any net which is not licensed and has not attached thereto the mark, label, or number prescribed by bye-laws of the fishery board:

Mr. PETO: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after paragraph (h), to insert a new paragraph—
(i) To prohibit or regulate the carrying in a boat or vessel during the annual close season for salmon of a net capable of taking salmon other than a net commonly used in the district for sea fishing, if carried in a boat or vessel commonly used for that purpose.
This is an Amendment to the Clause which regulates the powers of fishery boards to make bye-laws. I moved an Amendment in Committee but the Mnister very properly pointed out that it was rather too wide to accept. As the Amendment stood fishery boards might have been held to have powers to make bye-laws which might interfere with sea fishing. I have therefore added words to make that clear. I have no desire to interfere with
the catching of fish, but I want to give the fishery boards powers to effectively prevent fishing for salmon in the close season and make the work of supervision cheaper and easier. I believe the words as put down have the approval of the Minister.

Major CADOGAN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: Before the hon. Gentleman replies I should like to point out that the Amendment is extremely vague. I cannot congratulate the hon. Member who drafted it. Perhaps he can make it clear whether the last words "if carried in a boat or vessel commonly used for that purpose" mean for the purpose of salmon fishing or deep sea fishing. There are enough disabilities on fishermen as it is, and we do not want an extra one added. By the time the Bill goes to another place it should be made clear.

Mr. PETO: The Amendment has been under the consideration of the most expert draftsmen.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 62.—(Limitation of licences.)

1. A fishery board may by order confirmed by the Minister limit the number of licences to be issued in any year for fishing for salmon or trout in public waters within the fishery district with any instrument other than rod and line specified in the order, and provide for the selection of the applicants to whom licences shall be issued where the number of applications exceed the number of licences which may be granted:

Provided that—
(b) if the number of licences as limited by the order is less than the number of licences issued in any one of the previous three years, and objection to the order is duly made by any person who has during each of the previous two years held any such licence, the Minister before confirming the order shall cause a public enquiry to be held in the locality by an officer of the Ministry.

Sir R. SANDERS: I beg to move, at end of Sub-section (1, b), to insert the words
(c) The Minister shall not confirm an order unless he is satisfied that the terms of the order relating to the selection of licensees are such as to secure that any licensee, dependent upon fishing for his livelihood will be able to obtain a licence.
This is a question that was raised on Second Reading. I was not at the time ready to agree that the fishermen had any particular grievance, but I must say that when the Bill came to the Committee the hon. Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George), with energy that I can only describe as hereditary, and other Members, convinced me that there was a substantial grievance, and I promised to introduce the necessary words. The object of this Bill is to try to make things better for the fishermen, and there was some disposition to believe that this might make it worse.

Mr. HINDS: The Amendment was to meet the objections raised by the coracle people. We felt that Clause 2 raised a great deal of objection among these people who had been earning their living by this means for many centuries. We should like to see the Clause limited but we feel easier because the Minister has done all he can to see that the rights of these people have been met.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 84.—(Application to Solway Firth.)

1. With a view to securing uniformity as to the minimum size of mesh which may be lawfully used for taking salmon in any part of the Solway Firth, it is hereby declared that where the minimum size of mesh of nets used for taking salmon prescribed by any provision of this Act or by any byelaw in force in any part of the Solway Firth to which this Act applies is greater than that which may be lawfully used in the part of the Solway Firth to which this Act does not apply, the provision or byelaw shall have effect as if the minimum size of mesh so prescribed in relation to the part of the Solway Firth to which this Act applies were such as may be so lawfully used as aforesaid in the part of the Solway Firth to which this Act does not apply.

Amendments made: "At the beginning of the Clause, insert the words 'Until such an Order as is mentioned in the last preceding Section is made, and until such date thereafter as may be prescribed by such Order—'"

In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "to which this Act applies" ["to which this Act applies is"], and insert instead thereof the words "within England."

Leave out the words "to which this Act does not apply" ["to which this Act does
not apply, the provision"], and insert instead thereof the words "within Scotland."

Leave out the words "to which this Act applies" ["to which this Act applies were"], and insert instead thereof the words "within England."

Leave out the words "to which this Act does not apply" ["as aforesaid in the part of the Solway Firth to which this Act does not apply"], and insert instead thereof the words "within Scotland."—[Sir R. Sanders.]

CLAUSE 92.—(Repeals.)

1. The enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed as to England and Wales to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the word "Fourth" ["Fourth Schedule"], and insert instead thereof the word "Fifth."—[Sir R. Sanders."]

THIRD SCHEDULE.

RULES AS TO NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVE MEMBERS OF FISHERY BOARDS.

Amendment made: After Schedule 3 insert the following new Schedule—

FOURTH SCHEDULE.

PART I.

Limits of Solway District.

So much of the estuary known as the Solway Firth as lies to the east of a line drawn from the most projecting point of land south-east of Whitehill between Portling Bay and Portowarren Bay to the northern boundary of the parish and township of Seaton, in the County of Cumberland, including the foreshore and all rivers, creeks, and streams, and water as far as the tide flows and reflows, except so much of the Rivers Ellen, Waver, Wampool, Eden, Esk, Sark, Annan, Lochar, and Nith, and their estuaries, as lies above the following lines, namely:—

As respects the River Ellen, a line across the river along the seaward side of the bridge in Station Street, Maryport;
As respects the River Waver, a line across the river along the seaward side of the North British Railway bridge at Abbey Junction;
As respects the River Wampool, a line across the river along the seaward side of the Solway Junction Railway bridge;
As respects the Rivers Esk and Eden, a line across those rivers from the eastern side of the mouth of the River Sark, at Sark Foot, to Burgh Marsh Point;
2117
As respects the River Sark, a line across the river drawn true west from the southern extremity of the eastern bank of the river at Sark Foot;
As respects the River Annan, a line across the river drawn true north from the lighthouse at Annan Foot;
As respects the River Lochar, a line across the river drawn true east from the eastern extremity of the southern bank;
As respects the River Nith, a line drawn from the eastern extremity of the southern bank of New Abbey Pow to Scar Point, in Dumfriesshire.

The said lines shall be more particularly delineated on a plan approved for the purposes of the Order by the Minister and the Fishery Board for Scotland, and shall be marked in such manner as may be prescribed by the Order.

PART II.

Enactments which are to cease to apply within the Solway District.

The Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Acts, 1828 to 1868, except Sections twenty-three and thirty-three of The Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1862, and the provisions of The Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1868, relating to offences, so far as they are applied by this Act.

The local Act of the session of the forty-fourth year of the reign of His Majesty King George the Third, chapter forty-five, intituled 'An Act for the better regulating and improving the fisheries in the arm of the sea between the County of Cumberland and the Counties of Dumfriesshire and Wigton and the stewartry of Kirkcudbright, and also the fisheries in the several streams and waters which run into or communicate with the said arm of the sea,' except Section nine thereof.

The local Act of the session of the fourth and fifth years of the reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, chapter eighteen, intituled 'An Act for the more effectual preservetion and improvement of the fisheries in the River Annan, in the County of Dumfries, and in the streams and waters running into the same and on the shores or sea coasts adjacent to the mouth or entrance of the said river.'

All other enactments relating to salmon fisheries in Scotland."—[Sir R. Sanders.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Dr. CHAPPLE: I would like to extend my congratulations to the Minister for this very excellent piece of consolidation. It is a Bill of 93 Clauses. It went through Committee in less than two hours, and we have spent about two-and-a-half hours on it to-night, and that is four-and-a-half hours altogether. I am sure the Minister
will be the first to admit that his Department has put much labour into the measure. The officials have now got an experience which I hope he will place at the disposal of the Scottish Board. I appeal to him that, if the experience which has got this Bill through in four-and-a-half hours of Parliamentary time were bestowed on a similar measure to consolidate the law with regard to salmon and trout fisheries in Scotland it would be time well spent. I would appeal to him to allow his Department to do for Scotland what it has done for England. They have reconciled conflicting interests and have produced a piece of legislation which will require little amendment for many years to come. In my own constituency the Nith is being shamelessly polluted to-day. I am sure the law requires to be strengthened and consolidated, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to make that little concession.

Sir R. SANDERS: I thank the hon. Member for what he has said. It is like a vote of thanks at the end of a meeting. What he has said with regard to those of my Department who have worked on this Bill is well-deserved. They have devoted to it a great deal of anxious work, extending over several years, and I am sure that all those interested in fishing ought to be grateful to them for the labour which they have put in. I ought also to thank the House for having enabled me to pass this Bill in four and a half hours, which, after all, is not a bad record. I will certainly convey to those in my Department who have been working on the Bill the request of the hon. Member that, when they have had a little rest, they may place their experience at the disposal of Scotland.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-three Minutes before Two o'Clock a.m.